The Jeffersonian

Neoconservatism

2012-01-21T08:58:00.002-05:00

Very fitting.

Fort Sumter: the Untold Story

2012-01-05T07:09:00.000-05:00

“So viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the government, and so to resist force employed for its destruction by force for its preservation.” – Abraham Lincoln, address to Congress in special session, July 4, 1861.

One of the most persistent myths surrounding Abraham Lincoln and the War of Secession is that the Confederacy started the war by committing a naked act of aggression against the United States, namely by attacking Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. Those who followed Ron Paul’s campaign for President may remember David Shuster raising this point in defense of Lincoln when Dr. Paul appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, back in December of 2007. At that time, Dr. Paul was under fire for having suggested that Lincoln should not have engaged the country in “a senseless civil war,” remarks he made during an interview with Tim Russert on “Meet the Press.”

And while it is true that the Confederacy did attack Sumter, most Americans are unaware of the circumstances that led to the attack, including Lincoln’s rather significant behind-the-scenes role in it. For that reason, I would like to take some time to share my research into those days in the hope that it may disperse the cobwebs in a particularly dark and neglected corner of Lincoln’s legacy. Some may wonder if this sort of discussion is even relevant to our modern political debate, but I would argue that it is, if for no other reason than because our federal government is currently operating in line with Lincoln’s ideology and our presidents trip over themselves to emulate his example. As far as the power-elite are concerned, there is but one god, the State, and Lincoln is its prophet. They will defend his legacy to the death because their power and the institutions upon which it rests, along with all that they yet hope to build, stands on the lanky shoulders of our sixteenth president and ideology behind his “people’s contest”.

If we wish to return America to its constitutional foundation, it is crucial for us to understand the truth about the man who so dramatically turned it away from that foundation, and the basis upon which he did so. It is, therefore, my hope that those who have unquestioningly accepted the traditional view of Lincoln's integrity might find reasons to reconsider him based on what they read here, and that any future independence movement in these United States will learn from the mistakes of the past rather than repeat them.

The following discussion is taken from part two of my book, One Nation Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution.

Charleston on the Eve of War

In 1860, Charleston harbor was guarded by three key military installations: Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinckney, and Fort Sumter, the latter of which was located on an artificial island in the midst of the harbor and was unoccupied at that time. Major Robert Anderson, a Kentuckian, was in charge of the harbor’s defenses, and both he and his garrison were stationed in Fort Moultrie. Anderson, whom Jefferson Davis later referred to as “a true soldier and a man of the finest sense of honor,” was sympathetic to the Southern states but felt that his duty required him to act first and foremost as an officer in the United States military. For that reason, Anderson was troubled when it became apparent that South Carolina would likely secede in the wake of Abraham Lincoln’s election to the presidency.

On November 28, 1860, Anderson wrote to his superiors in Washington and requested instructions. He was afraid that he and his garrison might come under attack if South Carolina seceded, and while he was “anxious…indeed, determined, so far as honor will permit-to avoid collision with the citizens of South Carolina,” he had also determined that he would not surrender his garrison without a direct order from Washington. Anderson also requested additional reinforcements and stated that he thought he could defend himself better if he were allowed to place troops in Fort Sumter.

On December 1, Adjutant-General Samuel Cooper responded to Anderson that he was, per the instructions of Secretary of War John B. Floyd, to defend himself if attacked, but otherwise to conduct himself in such a way “as to be free from the charge of initiating a collision”. These instructions were reiterated on December 11, when Anderson was visited by Don Carlos Buell, assistant to the Adjutant-General. Anderson’s orders from Buell were to “hold possession of the forts in the harbor” and to defend himself “to the last extremity” if attacked, but to “carefully” avoid “every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression.” He was authorized to occupy any of the forts if he was attacked or had reason to believe that he might be, but he was not “without evident and imminent necessity, to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude.” These orders were further reiterated in a personal letter from Secretary Floyd to Anderson on December 21, 1860, in which Anderson was ordered to “hold possession of the forts in the harbor of Charleston,” and to defend himself if attacked but to “exercise a sound military discretion” and to do nothing provocative.

South Carolina’s state convention unanimously voted to secede from the Union on December 20, 1860, one day prior to the follow-up communication from Secretary Floyd to Anderson; and the state immediately dispatched commissioners to Washington to negotiate for the peaceful transference of Charleston’s forts. At this time Anderson became especially vigilant regarding the attitude of South Carolinians toward his garrison, and grew more fearful of an impending attack with each passing day as the “Palmetto Republic” got underway. And while he was not certain what South Carolina’s intentions toward him and his garrison might be in the long run, he definitely knew that the state wished no change in the “military situation” in the harbor. Writing to his superiors on December 22, Anderson stated:

I have heard from several sources that last night and the night before a steamer was stationed between this island and Fort Sumter. That the authorities of South Carolina are determined to prevent, if possible, any troops from being placed in that fort…No one call tell what will be done. They may defer action until their commissioners return from Washington; or if apprised by the nature of the debates in Congress that their demands will not probably be acceded to, they may act without waiting for them.

Clearly, Anderson understood that South Carolina would look negatively upon any attempt to move his garrison. Yet he was also responsible for defending the forts in the harbor and for protecting his men, a responsibility that led him to believe that he might have to violate South Carolina’s expectations, regardless of the political costs involved. Thus Anderson was caught in the unenviable position of having to exercise his discretion as to what constituted a threat against his command, and to act accordingly, while, at the same time, avoiding any actions that might be construed as provocative in the most highly charged political atmosphere in the history of the United States.

Finally, Anderson decided that he could wait no longer. He was convinced that he should abandon Fort Moultrie and place his garrison into Fort Sumter, where he thought South Carolina would “hardly be foolish enough to attack me” if negotiations did not go its way. With this in mind, Anderson transferred his garrison from Moultrie to Sumter after sundown on December 26, deceiving most of his men as to their intended destination, lest any of them should be inclined to warn South Carolina authorities. He then wrote his superiors to notify of them of the move, stating that it was, in his opinion, “necessary to prevent the effusion of blood”.

On the morning of December 27, the city of Charleston awoke to find a United States flag waving over Fort Sumter and smoke emanating from Fort Moultrie, as Anderson had ordered his men to destroy gun carriages and whatever ammunition could not be transported to Sumter. South Carolina authorities reacted to Anderson’s move by immediately taking possession of Castle Pinckney and Fort Moultrie and raising the Palmetto flag over those installations.

Anderson’s move created a flurry of activity. Newspapers, both North and South, accused the major of violating his orders and acting provocatively. South Carolina’s commissioners expressed their outrage to President James Buchanan, who advised that them that, while he understood that South Carolina believed Anderson had acted “not only without but against my orders,” he would not command Anderson to give up Sumter now that the state had seized the harbor’s remaining forts. Secretary of War Floyd was indignant, as he believed that Anderson had acted provocatively. When it became clear that Buchanan would not order Anderson to return to Moultrie, Floyd resigned.

In the final analysis, due to the fact that Anderson’s orders authorized him to hold the harbor, to occupy any fort necessary for accomplishing this directive, and to act based on his discretion in the matter, it must be said that he did not violate the “letter of the law” in moving to Fort Sumter. He did, however, violate the spirit of the law by knowingly taking action that would be viewed as provocative by the authorities at Charleston, and in the absence of any “evident and imminent necessity”. It is true that Anderson feared South Carolina authorities might assail him at Fort Moultrie at any time, but he had been in fear of this since November, and South Carolina had taken no such action in all that time. Nor had it made any moves against either Pinckney or Sumter, which it might have done quite easily, seeing as neither installation was garrisoned.

Indeed, the fact that South Carolina authorities were so completely taken by surprise by Anderson’s move, strongly indicates that they had no immediate intentions of assailing either Fort Sumter or Fort Moultrie. As it happened, it was not until after Anderson made his move that South Carolina made its move. Wondering whether the inhabitants of Charleston might not awake another morning to find a United States flotilla in the harbor, or some other such surprising state of affairs, state authorities seized control of the remaining forts and looked toward Washington with doubtful eyes. Ironically, Major Anderson had, by his actions in Charleston harbor, fostered a heightened attitude of suspicion and helped set the stage for the war that he himself wanted so very much to avoid.

The Star of the West

While South Carolina’s commissioners and President Buchanan were exchanging correspondence regarding the situation in Charleston harbor, Winfield Scott, hero of the Mexican War and General-In-Chief of the United States Army, was urging Buchanan to authorize a secret shipment of reinforcements, arms, and supplies to Fort Sumter. Buchanan, who found himself the subject of stinging accusations of spinelessness and disloyalty for failing take a hard line on South Carolina’s secession, already looked favorably on the idea, and had spent time discussing the matter with his cabinet. Buchanan suggested using the USS Brooklyn for the mission, but General Scott felt that the presence of a warship would be too provocative under the circumstances. Instead, he recommended using a merchant ship for the effort. Buchanan approved this plan and General Scott secured the services of the Star of the West, a merchant ship with a regular coastal run, to carry out the re-supply operation.

This sort of reinforcement and re-supply mission was exactly what South Carolina authorities were determined to prevent, thus great pains were taken to keep the Star’s mission a secret, as is evident in orders issued to Lieutenant Charles R. Woods – U.S. Ninth Infantry – by Assistant Adjutant-General Lorenzo Thomas on January 5, 1861. Woods was the officer placed in command of the reinforcements destined to arrive at Fort Sumter via the Star. “The duty upon which you are now placed by direction of the General-in-Chief,” wrote Thomas, “will require great care and energy on your part to execute it successfully”:

For it is important that all your movements be kept as secret as possible. Accordingly on approaching the Charleston bar, you will place below decks your entire force, in order that only the ordinary crew may be seen by persons from the shore or on boarding the vessel. Every precaution must be resorted to prevent being fired upon by batteries erected on either Sullivan’s or James Island.

In spite of efforts to keep the mission a secret, however, details of the Star of the West expedition soon leaked to the newspapers, and readers in Charleston had an account of the operation a full day before the Star was scheduled to arrive. When she appeared in Charleston harbor early on the morning of January 9, with her contingent of reinforcements concealed below decks, alerted South Carolina batteries promptly opened fire and forced the Star to retreat.

Major Anderson, who had seen a newspaper account of the Star expedition, but had not received any official notice from Washington, refused to fire on the South Carolina batteries that morning for fear of inadvertently starting a war. He regretted that decision once he discovered that the Star had indeed been sent by the United States government to aid him, and immediately wrote to Governor Pickens, demanding an explanation and threatening to close Charleston Harbor:

I have the honor, therefore, respectfully to ask whether the above mentioned act…was committed in obedience to your instructions, and to notify you, if it be not disclaimed, that I must regard it as an act of war, and that I shall not, after a reasonable time for the return of my messenger, permit any vessels to pass within range of the guns of my fort.

Pickens responded to Anderson by reiterating the fact of South Carolina’s secession, by stating that President Buchanan had been warned that any attempt to send troops into Charleston harbor would be regarded as “an act of hostility,” and by explaining that the Star had been fired upon only after disregarding warnings not to enter the harbor. Anderson communicated his exchange with Governor Pickens to the newly installed Secretary of War, Joseph Holt, who expressed regret that Anderson had not been informed of the Star’s mission and labeled South Carolina’s actions “an act of war”.

But while Secretary Holt accused South Carolina of committing an act of war, there was to be no war at this time. For the moment, Anderson remained at Fort Sumter with his small garrison, South Carolinians constructed various artillery batteries around the harbor perimeter, General Winfield Scott changed his mind about the wisdom of resupplying U.S. forts in Southern territory, and more states left the Union.

The Changing of the Guard

Beginning with Mississippi, five additional Southern states seceded during the month of January 1861. At the request of South Carolina, the seceded states met together in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4, and set about forming a provisional, confederated government to unite their interests.

At the top of the new Confederate government’s list of priorities was the issue of peacefully settling all outstanding matters with the United States. To the furtherance of that end, Southern leaders commissioned three men: A.B. Roman, Martin J. Crawford, and John Forsyth, to travel to Washington and open negotiations with the United States government. These men had been prominent members of the three parties running in opposition to the Republican Party in the election of 1860, and they were chosen in the hope that their previous political affiliations would give them a broad appeal to the non-Republican members of the federal government, since Republicans had shown no interest in negotiations thus far.

At the same time as the Confederacy was organizing down South, the United States were preparing to inaugurate a new president; and millions of eyes, both Northern and Southern, turned to President-elect Lincoln to see what stance he would take on secession. Lincoln had been outspoken during his campaign, flatly denying any possibility of secession and intimating that he might deal with potential secessionists “as old John Brown has been dealt with”. Yet, during the months between his election and inauguration, Lincoln was mysteriously silent on the issue, a fact which was, by itself, a source of unease on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line.

When the time for answers finally came on March 4, 1861, inauguration day, Lincoln unveiled a policy that was very simple and very hard-line in its implications. He considered secession impossible. The Union, he said, was “unbroken,” thus nothing in the relationship between the Southern states and the federal government had changed; and while he would not invade the seceded states, he promised to “hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts,” as if secession had never taken place. If war came, Lincoln said, it would come only as a result of the seceded states preventing him from peacefully fulfilling his constitutional responsibilities:

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority…beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere…

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ‘preserve, protect, and defend it’.

Lincoln’s inaugural address stirred mixed reactions throughout the country. Republicans and Unionists in the North were emboldened by Lincoln’s words, as they felt this was their assurance that the President intended to stand firm against the South. Southern secessionists were enraged by Lincoln’s comments, as they felt he was ignoring their peace overtures. They had no intention of surrendering any of the former federal properties they now held in their possession, nor were they going to pay duties and imposts to Washington, a city they now considered as housing a foreign government. Under these conditions, if both sides held firm, war was inevitable, and secessionists viewed Lincoln’s statements as a de facto declaration of war against them. At Fort Sumter, Captain John Foster took note of how Lincoln’s speech was received in Charleston and wrote to the U.S. Army Engineer’s office on March 6 concerning it: “We have not yet received the inaugural address of President Lincoln,” Foster commented, “although it is reported from town that it is coercive in its character, and that much excitement prevails.”

Unionists in the South and border states were also somewhat dismayed by Lincoln’s address, as they readily recognized the threat of coercion that it contained. Such threats, they understood, reduced chances for peacefully restoring the seceded states to the Union, and also held tremendous potential for swaying more states, particularly Virginia, into the Confederacy.

Days of Development and Decision

In the days following his inauguration, Lincoln took in the situation in Charleston harbor with great interest, examining Major Anderson’s dispatches and inquiring of his staff for opinions as to how the matter should be handled. From his dispatches, it appeared that Anderson would be out of supplies within a few weeks. Lincoln realized that if Anderson ran out of supplies he would be forced to surrender his garrison, and the new President was determined to hold the fort at all costs, as he believed that abandoning Sumter would be a vindication of secession.

With this conviction in mind, Lincoln determined to find some way in which to re-supply Sumter, and the first person he turned to on the matter was General Winfield Scott. On March 15, Lincoln wrote to Scott concerning a re-supply plan proposed by one Gustavus Fox – a former navy officer whom Lincoln would eventually make Assistant Secretary of the Navy – and asked: “Assuming it to be possible to now provision Fort Sumter, under all the circumstances is it wise to attempt it? Please give me your opinion in writing on this question.”

Scott reviewed the President’s question and reluctantly concluded that, “it would be unwise now to make such an attempt”:

The proposition presented by Mr. Fox, so sincerely entertained and ably advocated, would be entitled to my favorable consideration if, with all the light before me and in the face of so many distinguished military authorities on the other side, I did not believe that the attempt to carry it into effect would initiate a bloody and protracted conflict…

Scott went on to quote a letter from Major Anderson in which Anderson stated that it would take a force of no less than 20,000 “good and well-disciplined men” to seize control of Charleston harbor and effectively re-supply Fort Sumter. Scott also made it clear that the majority of his advisors concurred with Anderson’s opinion and advised against attempting such a mission. He then concluded his response to Lincoln with the following notation:

No practical benefit will result to the country or the Government by accepting the proposal alluded to, and I am therefore of opinion that the cause of humanity and the highest obligation to the public interest would be best promoted by adopting the counsels of those brave and experienced men whose suggestions I have laid before you.

Another military advisor, Brigadier General Joseph G. Totten, Chief of Army Engineers, expressed agreement with Scott, informing Lincoln that, “This attempt like any other, will inevitably involve a collision.”

Lincoln was disappointed with the military appraisal of his plans and turned to his cabinet, only to be disappointed again when he found the majority were in agreement with General Scott. Secretary of State William H. Seward was of the firm belief that any attempt to resupply Sumter would “provoke combat, and probably initiate a civil war”. Attorney General Bates, while he believed that South Carolina had already “struck the first blow” was, nevertheless, reluctant to do anything “which may have the semblance…of beginning a civil war, the terrible consequences of which would, I think, find no parallel in modern times”. Only Postmaster Montgomery Blair felt differently, arguing that a re-supply effort would “vindicate the hardy courage of the North” and reaffirm the authority of the Union.

The presence of such strong opposition in the cabinet and the military forced Lincoln to hesitate and re-evaluate his options somewhat, and he decided to gather more information before making a final decision on the future of Sumter. As part of that process, Lincoln sent Gustavus Fox to visit Sumter and decide for himself whether his re-supply plan was actually feasible. Fox left Washington on March 19, visited Fort Sumter and conferred with Major Anderson, although he did not inform Anderson of his plans. Fox then reported back to Lincoln on March 25, that, after having viewed the situation in Charleston harbor first-hand, his re-supply plan seemed “very feasible”.

In addition to Fox, Lincoln also sent two other scouts to South Carolina. One of these was his Charleston-born friend, Stephen A. Hurlbut, whose mission was to confer with friends and acquaintances and report back on the strength of Union sentiment in South Carolina, particularly in the city of Charleston. Arriving back in Washington two days after Fox, Hurlbut reported to the President that, “separate Nationality” was “a fixed fact” in the South. The seven seceded states were “irrevocably gone,” he said, and, further, it was his opinion that any attempt to “fulfill the duties of the Executive Office in enforcing the laws and authority of the U.S. within their limits will be War”.

The second of Lincoln’s two scouts was also another personal friend, Ward Hill Lamon. Lamon took a different tack than Hurlbut, not only visiting Fort Sumter, but also speaking with South Carolina Governor Francis Pickens. Although he was very devoted to Lincoln – and would eventually serve as his bodyguard – Lamon favored the peace policies of Secretary of State Seward in the Sumter affair, and actually went so far as to inform Major Anderson and Governor Pickens that no relief expedition would be attempted for Sumter. When Lincoln heard of Lamon’s promises to Anderson and Pickens, he was outraged and declared that Lamon had never been given authority to make any such statements. Still, due to his stubborn refusal to communicate with representatives from the seceded states (who, as he knew, were in Washington seeking an audience with him even then), Lincoln made no attempt to correct Lamon’s misinformation. Governor Pickens, Major Anderson, and the Confederate States government proceeded under the assumption that Sumter would be given up, believing that they had the authority of a presidential representative to that effect. They also had other assurances to this effect, which we will see shortly.

Following the reports of his scouts, Lincoln hesitated yet again. He actually give some thought to abandoning Sumter, and seemed willing to do so if he were promised that Virginia would remain in the Union, as he felt that exchanging a state for a fort was “no bad business”. But Virginia’s adherence to the Union was fragile, and pressure was mounting on Lincoln to move forward with strong measures. Ardent Unionists were concerned that the United States government not appear weak and indecisive. Additionally, there were concerns about a growing peace movement in the North, as it was garnering some prominent support.

Chief Justice Roger Taney was known to be opposed to the use of force against the South. Former Constitutional Union Party Vice Presidential candidate, Edward Everett, declared that “to hold States in the Union by force is preposterous.” James S. Thayer, a New York Democrat, stated that the peaceful separation of North and South, though “painful and humiliating,” should be pursued “so that we may yet be left in a comparatively prosperous condition, in friendly relations with another Confederacy.” Fiery abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison had called for a convention of the free states to “organize an independent government upon free and just principles,” and hoped they would ‘say to the slave states – “Though you are without excuse for your treasonable conduct, depart in peace!’” New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley stated, “We hope never to live in a republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets.” Talk of secession was cropping up in such places as New Jersey and California, and there was even some suggestion of turning New York City into a “free city”. Perhaps most alarming of all for Lincoln and his cabinet, however, was the revelation that General Winfield Scott was in favor of abandoning Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens, in order to stave off the threat of war.

By the end of March 1861, Lincoln’s cabinet had reversed its position and sided with the proposed re-supply mission for Sumter. Most still believed that such a mission was likely to result in war, but they now expressed opinions that the risk of war would be worthwhile, and if there was to be war, that it might as well start on their terms. Secretary Chase reflected this opinion when he remarked that, if war was to come: “I perceive no reason why it may not be best begun in consequence of military resistance to the efforts of the administration to sustain troops of the Union stationed, under authority of the Government, in a Fort of the Union, in the ordinary course of service.” Lincoln openly acknowledged the inevitability of conflict where his plan was concerned but, with his cabinet behind him, was determined to press forward with it in spite of the consequences. As Allan Nevins observes in his War for the Union: “To a friend he remarked that he was ‘in the dumps’ – for he knew that he must try to relieve Sumter, and relief meant war.”

When Major Anderson heard that a resupply fleet was on the way, he, too, knew what the end result must be, and wrote the following to his superiors:

I had the honor to receive by yesterday’s mail the letter of the honorable Secretary of War, dated April 4, and confess that what he there states surprises me very greatly…I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout our country. It is, of course, now too late for me to give any advice in reference to the proposed scheme of Captain Fox. I fear that its result cannot fail to be disastrous to all concerned...

I ought to have been informed that this expedition was to come. Colonel Lamon’s remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced. That God will still avert it, and cause us to resort to pacific measures to maintain our rights, is my ardent prayer.

Failed Negotiations

As mentioned previously, Confederate peace emissaries were sent to Washington in the hope of beginning negotiations between the United States and Confederate States governments, and bearing an introductory letter from Confederate President Jefferson Davis to that effect. Martin J. Crawford, the first of three Confederate commissioners, arrived in Washington D.C. three days prior to the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. Out-going U.S. President James Buchanan had evidently agreed to receive Crawford, or to at least refer him to the United States Congress; however, given the increasing stridence of Northern opinion against Buchanan’s administration, the President had come to fear for his own personal safety, as well as the safety of his home. Consequently, he refused to either see Crawford or refer him to the Senate.

Thus unable to meet with President Buchanan, and cognizant of the pressures under which the new administration would be assuming office, Crawford waited until the arrival of the second Confederate commissioner, John Forsyth, before attempting formal contact with the Lincoln administration. Of course, the Confederate commissioners knew of Lincoln’s position on secession through his inaugural address, and were aware that Lincoln might refuse to negotiate directly with them. However, they entertained hopes that the President might be willing to confer with them through the auspices of Secretary of State Seward, who was known to be the Lincoln administration’s foremost advocate of a peaceful resolution to the secession crisis.

With this hope, the Confederate commissioners attempted to contact Seward through the services of a series of intermediaries, starting with New York lobbyist Sam Ward, and Senators Gwin of California and Hunter of Virginia. Through these men, Seward requested a delay of twenty days in negotiations, a request the Confederate commissioners assented to on the condition that there be no change with regard to the existing military situation at Forts Sumter and Pickens. Although he had no authority to make such a promise, Seward nonetheless agreed to the terms. The Confederate commissioners then reported back to the Confederate capital on March 9, indicating that the Lincoln administration appeared to be readying itself to evacuate Fort Sumter, a view commonly held by those close to the administration at the time.

On March 12, the Confederate commissioners sent a formal introduction of themselves and their purpose to Secretary Seward through an intermediary, advising that “the President, Congress, and people of the Confederate States earnestly desire a peaceful solution…of all questions growing out of this political separation, upon such terms of amity and good-will as the respective interests, geographical contiguity, and future welfare of the two nations may render necessary”.

Seward drafted a response to the Confederate commissioners upon receiving their letter, but delayed sending it to them until April 8, as the commissioners had agreed to allow him twenty days to make his official response. In the meantime, and after supposedly consulting with Lincoln, Seward advised the commissioners that he could not communicate directly with them. For that reason, all future communications between Seward and the Confederate commissioners were conducted through the auspices of two members of the United States Supreme Court: Justice Campbell of Alabama, and Justice Nelson of New York. Campbell and Nelson met with Seward on several occasions throughout the Sumter crisis, and it was through their services that Seward communicated the information that gave the Confederacy false hopes regarding Sumter.

The first example of such an assurance from Seward came on March 15, 1861, the same day that Lincoln polled General Scott and his cabinet about Sumter. Seward told Judge Campbell that Jefferson Davis would find out “by telegram” – likely sometime within three days – that the order to abandon Sumter had been given. No doubt Seward thought Lincoln would cave under pressure from his cabinet and the military and quickly give the order for Sumter to be evacuated.

On March 20, five days following Seward’s assurance to Campbell, the Confederate commissioners learned that, not only had Fort Sumter not been evacuated, but Major Anderson was still actively working on its defenses. Justices Campbell and Nelson again approached Secretary Seward, and conducted two interviews with him on this new development. Seward assured them that the delay was “accidental,” that the evacuation would still take place, and that they would know as soon as any changes were made in the status of either Fort Sumter or Fort Pickens. This is interesting when you consider that, just one day prior to Seward’s renewed assurances, Gustavus Fox had left to survey the situation in Charleston harbor. Fox had left on his mission with the knowledge of General Winfield Scott, Secretary of War Cameron, and Postmaster Blair in addition to President Lincoln. Given the extent of his involvement in the administration, it is extremely implausible to believe that Seward was not aware of the mission as well. Yet, in spite of the fact that Lincoln had sent a scout to evaluate a re-supply effort, Seward continued to promise that the fort would be evacuated, even doing so in a “buoyant and sanguine” manner, as recounted by Campbell, and claiming that the delay was “accidental”. Given Seward’s mistaken assessment of his place in the administration, however, and his underestimation of Lincoln’s determination, it is likely that he thought he would ultimately have his way. This explanation might serve to excuse Seward from charges of duplicity in his dealings with the Confederate emissaries; however, it was not long before Seward knew of Lincoln’s intentions, leaving him without excuse for his continued assurances.

For its part, the Confederacy continued to wait based upon Seward’s word, as indicated by a letter sent from the three commissioners to Confederate Secretary of State, Robert Toombs, on March 20, 1861: “You have not heard from us because there is no change. If there is faith in man we may rely on the assurances we have as to the status. Time is essential to a peaceful issue of this mission. In the present posture of affairs precipitation is war. We are all agreed.”

Not having heard anything from Ward Hill Lamon since his departure from South Carolina, Governor Pickens telegraphed the Confederate commissioners on March 30 (one day following Lincoln’s final cabinet meeting before approving the Fox mission), and requested to know why Fort Sumter had not yet been evacuated as promised. The commissioners turned this telegraph over to Justice Campbell, who met with Secretary Seward on April 1, 1861. Seward informed Campbell that Lamon had acted without authority in promising that Fort Sumter would be evacuated. This was the first time the Confederates were informed that Lamon’s assurances were worthless. Seward then advised Campbell that, “the Government will not undertake to supply Fort Sumter without giving notice to Governor Pickens,” an announcement that took Campbell by surprise given Seward’s previous assurances that the fort would, in fact, be evacuated. But when Campbell asked the secretary if there had been “a change in his former communications,” Seward’s reply was “None.”

At this point, the commissioners were nearly out of patience, and rumors concerning an expeditionary force planned for Charleston harbor (size and intent unknown) had already leaked to the public. Judge Campbell wrote to Secretary Seward again concerning the subject and, once again, received assurances that all was well. “Faith as to Sumter fully kept,” Seward famously replied. “Wait and see.”

This communication between Campbell and Seward took place on April 7. By this time, Seward undoubtedly knew that Lincoln had approved the Fox expedition (this had been done on March 30), and that the expedition was to set sail at any time. In fact, just the day before, April 6, Lincoln had dispatched Robert S. Chew, an employee of Seward’s State Department, to South Carolina with a message to Governor Pickens:

I am directed by the President of the United States to notify [you] to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in provisions, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice or in case of an attack upon the fort.

Seward could not have been unaware of this, and it is rather telling that he changed his tune somewhat in communicating with Campbell, as he remarked that no attempt would be made to re-supply Fort Sumter, “without giving notice to Governor Pickens”. Obviously, Seward knew that the relief expedition was already in progress, and yet, he continued to provide assurances to the apparent contrary with, as historian Shelby Foote says, “the straight-faced solemnity of a man delivering an April fool pronouncement”.

By now Seward was in over his head. He had been passing false assurances along to the Confederate commissioners based on inaccurate assumptions of his own power in the Lincoln administration. Now that the cabinet had shifted in its viewpoint, events had moved beyond his control. This, combined with the fact that Seward had come under unwanted scrutiny for his peace policies (it was suspected that he was influencing General Scott to give up the forts), made the situation such that there was little he could do but attempt to cover his tracks and parse his statements so that he could not be accused of having outright lied to the commissioners. Still, no matter the situation, from his words it is quite evident that Seward intended the commissioners to believe that Sumter would be evacuated in accordance with his previous statements.

The Confederate commissioners were not entirely drawn in by Seward’s reassurances, however. News of the Fox expedition in the media, delays in Seward’s promised evacuation of Sumter, and particularly the sudden denial of Lamon’s assurances to Governor Pickens, had served to make them more than a little suspicious of the administration. Details concerning the makeup of the Fox expedition, including troop strength, were soon available to the public, to the dismay of the Lincoln administration and the consternation of Confederate authorities. Governor Pickens was not even permitted to reply to the message delivered by Chew stating that Sumter would be resupplied. When he asked to do so, Chew told Pickens that he was “not authorized to receive any communications from him in reply”.

Then, on April 8, the commissioners finally received Seward’s response to their introductory letter of March 12. In his letter, Seward informed the commissioners that he could not recognize the “so called Confederate States” as an entity with which “diplomatic relations ought to be established,” and, as a result, could not “recognize them as diplomatic agents, or hold correspondence or other communication with them.” Seward advised the commissioners that he had submitted his written reply to President Lincoln, who “sanctions the Secretary’s decision declining official intercourse” with the commissioners.

Having received Seward’s formal response to their letter, the Confederate commissioners sent a telegram to General P.G.T. Beauregard, who had assumed command of the Confederate forces in Charleston, to the effect that: “Accounts are uncertain, because of the constant vacillation of this Government. We were reassured yesterday that the status of Sumter would not be changed without previous notice to Governor Pickens, but we have no faith in them. The war policy prevails in the Cabinet at this hour.”

The commissioners then sent a written response to Seward’s letter through Justice Campbell on April 9, 1861. In it, they argued that they did not ask the United States government to recognize Confederate independence, but “only asked audience to adjust, in a spirit of amity and peace, the new relations springing from a manifest and accomplished revolution in the Government of the late Federal Union”. The administration’s refusal to treat with the commissioners, while, at the same time, preparing “active naval and military” operations to forcefully re-supply Fort Sumter could, as the commissioners put it, only be treated as “a declaration of war against the Confederate States,” due to the fact that Lincoln understood that Sumter could not be resupplied without conflict.

Seward replied to this last communication on April 10, but only to the extent of referring to his former letter indicating that he could not hold official negotiations with the commissioners, and acknowledging receipt of their reply to that letter. Their efforts to obtain an audience with the administration thus frustrated, the commissioners left Washington on April 11, 1861, and reported back to the Confederate government at Montgomery, Alabama. “We never had a chance to make Lincoln an offer of any kind,” John Forsyth informed Jefferson Davis. “You can’t negotiate with a man who says you don’t exist.”

On April 12, with the Fox expedition known to be underway, with the expedition’s intent uncertain, and with negotiations having failed, Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter. On April 13, a frustrated Judge Campbell wrote to Secretary Seward to ask for an explanation as to why Seward had continued to assert that Sumter would be evacuated when he knew that a re-supply operation was already in the works. Campbell informed Seward that the Confederate commissioners, as well as their government, felt that they had been “abused” by Seward’s continued reassurances, and that the “proximate cause” of the outbreak of violence at Fort Sumter was due to “the equivocating conduct of the Administration.” Seward did not reply.

Much debate has taken place over the years as to exactly how much Abraham Lincoln knew about Secretary Seward’s informal negotiations with the Confederate commissioners, and what he might have approved. In his Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Jefferson Davis argues that Lincoln must have known about Seward’s dealings with the Confederate commissioners, dealings which took place over nearly a month’s time and were conducted through sitting justices of the Supreme Court. Indeed, Davis mentions one particular occasion where Judge Campbell reported that Seward excused himself in order to confer with Lincoln, and then returned with what he said was the President’s official word.

Further, Davis argues that Lincoln must have known and approved of Seward’s actions, if for no other reason, because he took no punitive steps against Seward once the background of the Sumter affair became public knowledge.

Yet the Secretary of State was not impeached and brought to trial for the grave offense of undertaking to conduct the most momentous and vital transactions that had been or could be brought before the government of the United States, without the knowledge and in opposition to the will of the President, and for having involved the government in dishonor, if not disaster.

“Stand and Deliver”

While growing up, I was taught the story of Fort Sumter and how America’s bloodiest conflict was initiated by Southern guns in a contest for possession of that tiny island fortress; however, I never knew anything of the negotiation and manipulation that took place behind the scenes until I unearthed the information for myself. Up until that time, I had thought that, no matter whether the Southern states had the right to secede, the attack on Fort Sumter was a naked act of aggression. Given the information we have just reviewed, I have come to think differently on the matter.

The attack on Fort Sumter was certainly ill advised and unnecessary, and it played into Lincoln’s purpose. As we have seen, Lincoln, his military advisors and his cabinet, all knew very well that any effort to relieve Sumter would result in war. They had the precedent set by the Star of the West incident, which told them that the Confederates would open fire on any force that entered the harbor without permission; and, further, this time they knew that Major Anderson would return fire. With war made inevitable by his head-in-the-sand approach to secession, and by his refusal to negotiate with the Confederate commissioners, Lincoln’s challenge was to find a way in which to provoke Southerners into firing that first, fatal shot. Only then could he unite the reluctant factions of the Northern states on the basis of repelling Southern aggression.

Lincoln had laid the groundwork for this policy in his first inaugural address, in which he had indirectly threatened the Confederate states with his talk of “you can have no conflict without yourselves being the aggressors”. This is interesting when you consider that, during his presidential campaign, he had chided the South for using a very similar type of indirect threat. Speaking in reference to Southern threats to secede should he be elected President, Lincoln had said: “A highwayman holds a pistol to my head and mutters through his teeth, ‘Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you and then you will be a murderer.’” Then, having won the election, Lincoln informed Southerners that they would give him what he wanted or there would be war and it would be their fault: “In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.”

Translation: “Stand and deliver”.

Lincoln was advised to employ this tactic by his friend Senator Orville Browning of Illinois, among others, and for the very purpose of attempting to place the Southern states in the wrong, as illustrated by the following excerpt from one of Browning’s letters to Lincoln:

In any conflict…between the government and the seceding States, it is very important that the traitors shall be the aggressors, and that they be kept constantly and palpably in the wrong. The first attempt…to furnish supplies or reinforcements to [Fort] Sumter will induce aggression by South Carolina, and then the government will stand justified, before the entire country, in repelling that aggression, and retaking the forts.

Writing to Orville Browning after the Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter, Lincoln stated: “The plan succeeded…They attacked Sumter – it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could.” To Gustavus Fox, the architect of his re-supply plan, Lincoln wrote: “You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumpter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.”

The question to ask here is how could Lincoln claim to be “justified” by the result of his plan when the result was war? Unless, of course, that was the plan. True to Browning’s advice, Lincoln had placed the Confederacy on the horns of a most unpleasant dilemma. If the Confederates allowed Fort Sumter to remain in Union hands, they would have essentially surrendered their claims to independence. They would also have been allowing a foreign government to retain control of a key defensive position in the midst of one of their few good ports. On the other hand, if they did strike out at the fort, they risked being labeled as aggressors, and, in the words of Browning, the United States government would “stand justified…in repelling that aggression, and retaking the forts”.

Either way, Lincoln won and he knew it. In the words of Shelby Foote, Lincoln’s plan was to “await an act of aggression by the South, exerting in the interim just enough pressure to provoke such an act, without exerting enough to justify it”. Historian James McPherson has referred to Lincoln’s strategy as “a stroke of genius,” remarking that, “in effect, he was telling Jefferson Davis, ‘heads I win, tails you lose’”.

Some in the South saw the inevitable consequences of an attack on the fort and counseled against it. Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens – who had argued against secession in his home state of Georgia – favored delaying action on Sumter, as did Secretary of State Robert Toombs, who objected to the use of force in terms that proved to be prophetic:

The firing on that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has ever seen. Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet’s nest which extends from mountains to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal.

Yet there were others who felt that striking a blow at Sumter would ensure Confederate unity and probably bring indecisive border states into the fold, if they saw that the infant Southern republic was capable of sustaining itself. There were also defensive considerations. The port of Charleston was one of the South’s few good ports. If Major Anderson should decide to do so, he could effectively close the port by firing on any ship within range of his guns, as he had threatened to do after the Star of the West incident. There was also the fact that the true mission of the relief expedition was unknown. The Confederates suspected that Lincoln might be intending to retake all of the forts in Charleston harbor, or even to invade the city itself. For that reason, they decided to take control of Sumter before the fleet could arrive, lest they find themselves confronting the guns of a naval flotilla in combination those of Anderson. “A deadly weapon has been aimed at our heart,” Jefferson Davis said in summary of the Confederate position, “only a fool would wait until the shot has been fired.”

Still, despite all of this, it seems that Lincoln did at least make a goodfaith effort to reveal his intentions by sending that eleventh hour note to Governor Pickens, advising that he was going to send supplies to Sumter – and only supplies. Why then was this assurance not sufficient to prevent the Confederate attack? Jefferson Davis, writing in his Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, explains that the Southern government was not impressed with Lincoln’s assurances for a number of reasons.

First, Davis argues that there was no reason to believe Lincoln’s Assurances, given the Star of the West incident and the “deceptions practiced upon the Confederate commissioners in Washington”. Although Lincoln stated that the Confederates had been “expressly notified” that he intended to place only provisions in Sumter at that time, Davis points out that the Confederates had been “just as expressly notified”(by Lamon and Seward) that Sumter would be evacuated, and that “it would be as easy to violate the one pledge as it had been to break the other”. Secondly, Davis stated that the note to Governor Pickens was “a mere memorandum, without date, signature, or authentication of any kind”. In Davis’ opinion, the note seemed to be “carefully and purposedly divested of every attribute that could make it binding and valid,” in case Lincoln decided to deny that he had ever sent it.

“Cryptic Utterances”

Robert Toombs was correct when he argued that the attack on Sumter put the South in the wrong and would lose it friends in the North. In retrospect, the South should either have allowed the fort to be resupplied (since it was already in Union hands, it would not have been a loss to them), or it should have officially denied the re-supply fleet entrance to Charleston Harbor, thus putting the issue of force back into the Union’s corner. But the Confederates were angry, fearful, and out of patience. They had been ignored by Lincoln, led astray by Seward, misinformed by Lamon, and alarmed by news of an approaching fleet. Still fresh in their memory was Anderson’s surprise move to Sumter from Moultrie and Buchanan’s attempt to secretly land troops on Sumter. Again, the Confederates did not wish to confront the guns of a hostile fleet combined with those of Anderson, and there was no way for them to know what the fleet’s objective truly was at that time. The only assurances they had came from a government they by then – and not without good reason – believed to be dishonest and manipulative. They lashed out at Sumter, partially in anger, partially in panic, partially hoping that the border states would see their resolve and join them.

In fact, based on the evidence we have seen and how it points to Lincoln’s attempts to provoke the South into firing that first shot, it is not altogether unreasonable to wonder if Lincoln allowed Seward to provide the South with his false assurances that Sumter would be evacuated. As Jefferson Davis argued, Lincoln must have known what Seward was up to, and he must have realized that the Confederates would be confused and angry when it was revealed that Seward had misled them. Adopting such a tactic certainly increased the chance that the South would act preemptively, which is apparently what he wanted. Still, Lincoln’s defenders have argued that he really never intended to provoke the South into starting a war at all, and it is fitting that we should examine that perspective before concluding our discussion on this topic.

One of Lincoln’s defenders where this subject is concerned is his noted biographer David Donald. In his book Lincoln, Donald states that the “cryptic utterances” Lincoln made to Browning and Fox about the firing on Fort Sumter did not actually mean that his purpose was to provoke war with the Confederacy. Lincoln was in a “contradictory position,” Donald says, because he had vowed “not to be the first to shed fraternal blood. But he had also vowed not to surrender the forts”:

The only resolution of these contradictory positions was for the Confederates to fire the first shot. The attempt to relieve Fort Sumter provoked them to do just that.

As you can see, Donald starts out by essentially saying that Lincoln did not really mean what he said, and then goes on to prove that Lincoln meant what he said after all. Donald states that Lincoln was in a contradictory position, and this much is certainly true. Lincoln could not peacefully hold the forts and collect the revenues from a group of people who felt that he had no authority over them. Ultimately, Lincoln would have been compelled to use force.

Donald is also correct in stating that Lincoln attempted to resolve “these contradictory positions” by provoking the Confederates to shoot first, which is astounding when you consider that he is saying this in an effort to argue that Lincoln did not want to provoke war. Donald completely contradicts himself here, arguing that Lincoln did not want to provoke war, and then immediately demonstrating why he did just that, and why he had every reason to do it. Despite his best effort to demonstrate otherwise, Donald merely reaffirms the fact that Lincoln actively sought to provoke the South into firing that first shot, setting him at liberty to dub Southerners “aggressors” and to “call out the war power of the government” against them. There is simply no way around the matter. In the above excerpt, Donald is forced to acknowledge the very thing he is attempting to disprove.

Beyond this point, however, Donald also claims that Lincoln made “repeated efforts to avoid collision in the months between his inauguration and the firing on Fort Sumter,” and I have to ask: what precisely did Lincoln do? In all of my considerable research into this subject, I have yet to find a single example of any act on Lincoln’s part that was genuinely designed to avoid conflict. How could he have worked for peace when he would not treat with the representatives of other side, not necessarily to the point of recognizing their political independence, but simply to the point of avoiding hostilities? As John Forsyth put it, Lincoln acted as if the Confederate commissioners did not even exist.

Also, Lincoln made no secret of the fact that his proclamation of rebellion was based on George Washington’s proclamation from the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion. But it was a well-known fact even in Lincoln’s day that, prior to issuing his proclamation calling forth the militia in that situation, President Washington sent emissaries to try and negotiate a peaceful end to the crisis. Why did Lincoln follow Washington’s overall pattern and yet omit this all-important step? Even his letter to Governor Pickens was a half-hearted, eleventh-hour effort at best, and was issued after he had already set his plans in motion, plans that he knew were certain to lead to war.

Lincoln did have opportunities to reach a peaceful resolution to the secession crisis, even apart from dealing with the Confederate commissioners, but he chose not to avail himself of them. Robert Johannsen, author of Stephen Douglas, illustrates one such instance for us in describing Lincoln’s refusal to help Douglas, his old political foe from Illinois and supporter during the war, to salvage the Virginia Peace Conference in February, 1861. “The task of the Peace Conference was not only formidable,” says Johannsen, “it was hopeless”:

The selection of delegates in some northern states was so manipulated by Republican governors and legislatures as to prevent an adjustment, and some delegates were instructed to resist compromise…Douglas appealed to Lincoln to intervene with the Republicans in order to save the conference, but his gesture was not successful.

David Donald agrees with Johannsen’s assessment of the potential for peace in 1861. He states that Lincoln might have intervened in negotiations and brought about some type of reconciliation were it not for the fact that Lincoln “considered these compromise schemes bribes to the secessionists”. Others also commented on the Lincoln administration's inflexibility. The Louisville Journal condemned Republican leaders for what it called their “unconciliatory and defiant course,” and claimed that it was, “beyond dispute the principle cause of the fearful distrust of the North which now possesses and inflames the Southern breast.” Noah Brooks, a journalist and personal friend of Lincoln’s, wrote that Lincoln would not negotiate with the Confederates because he would not “permit himself to be seduced into recognizing any persons as ambassadors or emissaries sent from the so-called President Davis,” as Lincoln denied the legitimacy of the Confederate government. Beyond this point, however, Brooks went on to say that there was no reason for Lincoln to negotiate anyway because, “Negotiation implies that the rebellion was not without cause and that the Government stands ready to make just concessions; it argues governmental inability to conquer a peace”

Lincoln defenders have also cast doubt on the sincerity of the South’s attempts at negotiation, as Allan Nevins demonstrates for us here in this excerpt from his War for the Union:

But that the [Confederate] commissioners themselves attempted to delude and deceive Seward by tacitly encouraging his belief in eventual Southern return there is no doubt! [Martin] Crawford admitted as much when early in March he notified Toombs that he had acquiesced in Seward’s plea for delay, on condition that the existing status be rigidly preserved. “His reasons, and my own, it is proper to say, are as wide apart as the poles; he is fully persuaded that peace will bring about a reconstruction of the Union, whilst I feel confident it will build up and cement our Confederacy, and put us beyond the reach of either his arms or his diplomacy.” He did not tell Seward that!

In answer to Nevins, I would first point out that Crawford was unable to tell Seward much at all because Seward would not speak with him! Clear communications between the two men were rendered virtually impossible by the Lincoln administration’s stubborn insistence on remaining deaf and dumb toward the South. Second, the Confederate commissioners were sent to Washington for the very purpose of facilitating peaceful separation, not for reunification. Seward was certainly not blind to that fact, nor was he blind to the fact that the Confederacy would continue to establish itself during the time he had requested for a delay. He could not have reasonably expected the Confederates to simply sit back and hold their breath for a month. The fact that Seward wanted peace in order to reconstruct the Union was well known to the commissioners; and the fact that the commissioners wanted peace in order to further construct the Confederacy and solidify its independence was not lost on Seward, as his ultimate response to them indicates. In granting his request for a delay, the commissioners did not entertain any false hopes that Seward might have had. Their purpose for being in Washington never changed, nor did they ever say that it had. The man Nevins calls “the wily Seward” certainly knew why they were there; his own correspondence with the commissioners proves that beyond question.

Lincoln’s Final Case for War

In the following excepts from his message to Congress in special session, July 4, 1861, Lincoln fabricated a case for war against the South based on the incident at Fort Sumter.

It is thus seen that the assault upon and reduction of Fort Sumter was in no sense a matter of self defense on the part of the assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the fort could by no possibility commit aggression upon them.

As we have seen, all that Southerners knew for certain at the time was that a secret military expedition had been assembled and was being sent in their direction. Due to the vacillation and stubborn tactics of the administration in Washington, they could not be certain what mission the fleet was sent to accomplish. Also, as indicated earlier, Sumter was not defenseless. In his letter to Governor Pickens following the Star of the West incident, Major Anderson had clearly threatened to close Charleston harbor, as virtually any vessel entering the harbor would “pass within range of the guns of my fort”. Sumter’s location in the harbor had been chosen for precisely this purpose, so that it might deny entrance to enemy vessels attempting to attack Charleston. Anderson’s threat clearly demonstrated that Fort Sumter was, in fact, capable of “committing aggression” if its commander so ordered. And it must also be remembered that the Confederacy was dealing with the possible threat of having to contend with the guns of Fort Sumter in concert with a federal flotilla, if it turned out that Lincoln had decided to land troops in Charleston.

Lincoln continues:

They knew – they had been expressly notified – that the giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison was all which would on that occasion be attempted, unless themselves, by resisting so much, should provoke more.

The Confederates believed they had been expressly notified of a number of things on a number of occasions; and, as Jefferson Davis asked, how could they be any more certain that the Lincoln government was sincere this time around? As to the matter of food, Anderson had no intention of starving his command to death in an effort to hold the fort.

On the afternoon of March 11, 1861, two of General Beauregard’s aids were dispatched to Anderson with a letter advising him that Beauregard had been ordered to take possession of Sumter. Anderson declined to surrender the garrison, but stated to Beauregard’s aids that if the Confederates did not “batter us to pieces” the garrison would be starved out in a few days anyway. Beauregard included this information along with Anderson’s written response in a transmission to the Confederate government, and received the following reply from Secretary of War Walker:

We do not desire needlessly to bombard Fort Sumter. If Major Anderson will state the time at which, as indicated by him, he will evacuate, and agree that in the mean time he will not use his guns against us, unless our should be employed against Fort Sumter, you are authorized thus to avoid the effusion of blood. If this or its equivalent be refused, reduce the fort as your judgment decides to be most practicable.

Beauregard informed Anderson of Secretary Walker’s reply, and early on the morning of April 12, 1861, Anderson responded as follows:

GENERAL: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your second communication…and to state, in reply, that, cordially uniting with you in the desire to avoid the useless effusion of blood, I will, if provided with the proper and necessary means of transportation, evacuate Fort Sumter by noon on the 15th instant, should I not receive, prior to that time, controlling instructions from my Government, or additional supplies; and that I will not in the mean time, open my fire upon your forces unless compelled to do so by some hostile act against this fort, or the flag of my Government, by the forces under your command, or by some portion of them, or by the perpetration of some act showing a hostile intention on your part against this fort or the flag it bears.

Jefferson Davis later stated that Beauregard could not accept Anderson’s terms due to the fact that the re-supply mission would arrive well before noon on April 15, as well as the fact that any confrontation with those ships entering the harbor would release Major Anderson from his agreement not to fire on the Confederates. For these reasons, Beauregard determined that he had no other choice but to open fire and “reduce” Fort Sumter before the re-supply fleet could arrive. The fleet did, in fact, arrive at Charleston harbor on the morning of April 12, but was unable to enter due unfavorable weather conditions.

Clearly, Anderson was not intent on starving his garrison in order to hold Sumter. On the contrary, he intended to evacuate the fort when his supplies ran out. Lincoln knew of the critical supply shortage, hence his urgent desire to re-supply the garrison; however, there was a more fundamental cause underlying his concern than that of “the giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison,” as he stated in the following:

They knew that this Government desired to keep the garrison in the fort, not to assail them, but merely to maintain visible possession, and thus to preserve the Union from actual and immediate dissolution – trusting, as hereinbefore stated, to time, discussion, and the ballot-box, for final adjustment; and they assailed and reduced the fort for precisely the reverse object – to drive out the visible authority of the Federal Union, and then force it to immediate dissolution.

Thus Lincoln once again confirms the political reasons behind Fox’s relief mission to Sumter: to hold the fort for the Union. Lincoln states that this was in order “to preserve the Union from actual and immediate dissolution,” but the entire Union was not facing dissolution simply because the Southern states were departing. The Northern states were still united under the Constitution and the government in Washington was still functional. The secessions of the Southern States would no more have destroyed the United States of America than the secession of the thirteen colonies had destroyed Great Britain. And surely the loss of one more fort could not have been as catastrophic to Washington as the loss of seven entire states! Nor was Sumter worth the inevitable loss of the border states or the loss of the hundreds of thousands who would die in the war.

Also, Lincoln’s comments about trusting “to time, discussion, and the ballot-box” are almost humorous. Lincoln was the one rushing pell-mell toward war; and who, precisely, was it that he intended should discuss the situation, since his administration would not confer with Southern representatives? A vote? He never called for a vote, or a convention of the states, or any action by Congress. In his inaugural, he suggested that the American people could do what they wished with the Union, but he certainly never tried to present the issue to them for a decision. He acted on his own.

Lastly, we see Lincoln refer back to the trap he had set for the Confederacy:

And having said to them in the inaugural address, “You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors,” he took pains not only to keep this declaration good but also to keep the case so free from the power of ingenious sophistry that the world should not be able to misunderstand it. By the affair at Fort Sumter, with its surrounding circumstances, that point was reached.

Then and thereby the assailants of the Government began the conflict of arms, without a gun in sight or in expectancy to return their fire, save only the few in the fort, sent to that harbor years before for their own protection, and still ready to give that protection in whatever was lawful. In this act, discarding all else, they have forced upon the country the distinct issue, “immediate dissolution or blood.”

The Simple Matter of a Choice

If Lincoln had no other choice but war in meeting the issue of secession, it was he who put himself in that position. There were other alternatives available, including negotiation. The South was certainly willing to negotiate. It actively tried to negotiate. It had nothing to lose, and everything to gain, from negotiation. Nor would holding negotiations with the Confederates have been equivalent to recognizing their independence or granting them some sort of legitimacy. Again, President Washington attempted negotiation during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1795 but, in doing so, he certainly did not recognize the legitimacy of the movement, nor did anyone believe that he had. Lincoln appealed to other precedents set by Washington at that time – why not this one as well?

In the final analysis, Lincoln made a very simple, informed choice concerning the matter of secession. He did have options other than war. He could have referred the matter to Congress, called for a constitutional conference, or suggested a special election to ascertain the will of the American people. He did none of these things. Instead, he determined that he would adopt one course and pursue it inflexibly. The facts of the situation and the opinions of his friends and advisors were before him; he understood the implications. He went forward, knowing what the result would be, and trying to color the circumstances so they would be as favorable to his cause as possible. But this was Lincoln’s way. It was an established part of his character. He portrayed himself almost as though he had no will of his own but could only act in an automatic, pre-programmed and unchangeable fashion.

An example of this comes from his second inaugural address: “Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.” Here Lincoln states that “one of them” (the South) “would make war,” and “the other” (Lincoln and the North) “would accept war…” In other words, the North had nothing to do with starting or conducting the war, it just participated out of necessity after the South made war against it. This despite the fact that almost any historian, regardless of ideological stripe, would be forced to admit that the Southern states fought on the defensive, and for the purpose of securing independence from the North, not conquering it. Yet, Lincoln spoke as though he had no hand in the matter, as if the war was an approaching thunderstorm that he could do nothing about except to watch and weather. The facts differ with that assessment.

Admittedly, the South should not have attacked Sumter. It should have waited, thus effectively calling Lincoln’s bluff, confirming its peaceful intentions, and handing the issue of force back to Lincoln while the peace movement continued to grow in the North. So, yes, the Confederates certainly share part of the blame here. They allowed themselves to be manipulated to their own detriment. But I hope this discussion has demonstrated that Lincoln did seek to anger them, did attempt to manipulate and provoke them, and does bear the primary blame for pursuing a course that he knew would lead to war when his opponent was sincerely trying to offer him other options. At the very least, I hope we have demonstrated that Lincoln was not an innocent, aggrieved party in the Sumter affair.

In concluding my analysis, I quote from Alexander Stephens. Stephens readily admitted that the fact that the Confederacy fired the first shot was, “a great truth that will live forever”. However:

You must allow me to say that in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that gurates or begins the conflict. Hallam has well said that “the aggressor in a war (that is, he who begins it,) is not the first who uses force, but the first who renders force necessary”.

Which side, according to that high authority…was the aggressor in this instance? Which side was it that provoked and rendered the first blow necessary? The true answer to that question will settle the fact as to which side began the war.

Bibliography:

The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, Vol I, Series I, Pt 1.

Basler, Roy, ed., Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings. Cleveland, OH: the World Publishing Company, 1946.

Burnlingame, Michael, ed., Lincoln Observed: Civil War Dispatches of Noah Brooks. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Catton, William and Bruce, Two Roads to Sumter: Abe Lincoln, Jeff Davis and the March to Civil War. Reprint, Phoenix Press, London, 1988.

Craven, Avery, The Coming of the Civil War. The University of Chicago Press, 1942.

Current, Richard N., Lincoln and the First Shot. New York: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1963.

Davis, Jefferson, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. 1881, New York: Da Capo Press, Inc., 1990, Vol. I.

Donald, David Herbert, Lincoln. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995.

Foote, Shelby, The Civil War: A Narrative, From Sumter to Perryville. (New York, Random House, 1958.

Garrison, Webb, Lincoln’s Little War. Nashville, TN: Rutledge Hill Press, 1997.

Johannsen, Robert W., Stephen A. Douglas. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973.

McPherson, James, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford University Press, New York, 1988.

Nevins, Allan, War for the Union. New York: Kronecky & Kronecky, 1960, Vol I.

Oats, Stephen. Abraham Lincoln: The Man Behind the Myths. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. 1984.

Richardson, James D., ed., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Confederacy. United States Publishing Company, Nashville, 1905.

Smith, George Winston and Judah, Charles, Life in the North During the Civil War: A Source History. The University of New Mexico Press, 1966.

Stephens, Alexander H., A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States. 1868, Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1994.

Strode, Hudson, Jefferson Davis: Confederate President. Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York: NY, 1959.

Swanberg, W.A., First Blood: the Story of Fort Sumter. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York: N.Y, 1957.

Robert Hawes is the author of One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution. This article, along with his past writings, can be found on his blog. He lives in South Carolina with his family, and is working on a career as a freelance writer.

The Twelve Days of Fascism

2011-12-05T18:05:00.001-05:00

A little black humor for the holidays.

The Twelve Days of Fascism

On the first day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
The status of detainee.

On the second day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the third day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the fourth day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the fifth day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Five waterboards,
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the sixth day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Six FEMA coffins,
Five waterboards,
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the seventh day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Seven TSA gropings,
Six FEMA coffins,
Five waterboards,
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the eighth day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Eight secret courts,
Seven TSA gropings,
Six FEMA coffins,
Five waterboards,
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the ninth day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Nine endless wars,
Eight secret courts,
Seven TSA gropings,
Six FEMA coffins,
Five waterboards,
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the tenth day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Ten healthcare mandates,
Nine endless wars,
Eight secret courts,
Seven TSA gropings,
Six FEMA coffins,
Five waterboards,
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the eleventh day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Eleven tasers tasing,
Ten healthcare mandates,
Nine endless wars,
Eight secret courts,
Seven TSA gropings,
Six FEMA coffins,
Five waterboards,
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee..

On the twelfth day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Twelve markets crashing,
Eleven tasers tasing,
Ten healthcare mandates,
Nine endless wars,
Eight secret courts,
Seven TSA gropings,
Six FEMA coffins,
Five waterboards,
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

Thought Police

2011-10-16T15:55:00.002-04:00

American Perceptions

2011-10-11T18:25:00.002-04:00

I would say that this is a fair approximation of the general American mentality:

"Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura" - 2012 episode

2011-08-03T18:38:00.002-04:00

Whatever you think of Jesse Ventura, please watch and give thoughtful consideration to the following video from his "Conspiracy Theory" program. Much of what is presented here corresponds with my own research. Interesting times are coming, to say the least.

Beware of Greeks (or politicans) advocating conformity.

2011-07-29T00:54:00.001-04:00

Beware of people who tell you to "Get in line." It's much easier to gun people down, or march them off to the "showers," when they're standing in nice, neat little rows.

A Tyranny of "Good Guys"

2011-07-29T00:51:00.000-04:00

The desire for power is not a vice that afflicts only "bad guys". Often "good guys" will attempt to acquire power in order to force their ideals on others (ostensibly for their own good) or else to keep power out of the hands of the "bad guys". Unfortunately, however, history bears out that "good guys" who seek power for these purposes often become the worst of the "bad guys" because they pursue their goals with the approval of their conscience.

"Good guys" that seek power for such aims are suspicious of anyone who stands in their way, viewing such people as either misled or else one of the "bad guys", but, either way, a threat to what is "good". They resent even being questioned. This is how dissenters become 'enemies of the State', and ultimately victims of its oppression, even when "good guys" are in charge. This is also why legislation such as the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act (among others) and the concepts that "unlawful enemy combatants" and "terror suspects" have, essentially, no rights at all, and that torture is really a good and necessary thing, are going to end up destroying the freedoms and enslaving the people they were ostensibly meant to protect.

The only thing that can protect freedom in the long run is a staunchly upheld separation of powers, emphasizing individuals rather than artificial entities such as the State (and unquestioning loyalty thereto).

One sure-fire way to tell when you're heading downhill fast under a tyranny of "good guys" is when they bristle at being questioned and demand the right to operate in secret. When this happens - as it is now happening - look out.

"No" - by Matt Hawes of Ron Paul's 'Campaign for Liberty'

2011-07-28T15:24:00.000-04:00

http://www.campaignforliberty.org/profile/7788/blog/2011/07/28/no

Multiple sources reported yesterday that House Speaker John Boehner told Republican representatives to “get your a-- in line” and support his debt ceiling compromise during a meeting on Wednesday.

Why is the GOP leadership scrambling for support? Because they know the American people are outraged at yet another surrender and are putting historic pressure on Republican members to reject any business as usual proposal that will keep our country running full steam ahead toward economic disaster.

I hope you contact your representative today with one simple message. When threatened to “get in line” to support the statist quo and presented with the leadership’s plan today, tell them to just say “no.”

No to phony deals.

No to more debt.

No to more runaway spending.

No to selling out our futures so they can make an unpopular, desperate president happy.

To try to pacify those who actually want to solve our nation’s problems, the leadership put together a plan that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates will reduce the deficit by $917 billion.

Over the next ten years.

Meanwhile, they’ll let the President have a $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling – right away.

But wait! The leadership is bragging that their plan will reduce the Fiscal Year 2012 budget deficit by a whole $22 billion – in what’s expected to be an over $1 trillion deficit.

That is, frankly, insulting.

You know how you convince people to “get in line”?

You lead.

Real leadership wouldn’t require a panicked scramble that involves cursing at the people you courted to get power less than a year ago.

Real leadership wouldn’t require threatening your fellow members of Congress.

Real leadership during this economic crisis would inspire the American people, who would take care of putting the pressure on their elected officials because they would see that you were willing to fight for legitimate change.

Real leadership would follow Senator Rand Paul’s example by calling for at least $500 billion in cuts this year and an immediate, fundamental change in how government operates.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough of being told I’m “extreme” because I think it’s fiscally responsible to drastically cut spending when we’re trillions of dollars in debt.

So, please, join me in contacting Congress to urge our representatives to oppose the House Republican Leadership’s so-called “plan.”

Over half a million Americans have “gotten in line” with the freedom message by joining Campaign for Liberty because they know we are fighting for solutions – not surrender.

If the House Republican Leadership expects people to join them, then they should start trying to give people something worth following.

Freedom Quote of the Day

2011-07-26T15:32:00.000-04:00

"Freedom has ceased to be a birthright; it has come to mean 'whatever we are still permitted to do'." - Joe Sobran

A Tribute to Samantha Smith

2010-04-09T14:48:00.006-04:00

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.” – Matthew 5:9

I was only ten years old in 1983, but I well remember the political tensions of the time. In those days, my family and I lived in the suburbs of Northern Virginia, a mere stone’s throw from Washington D.C.; and I knew enough even then to realize that, if the Soviet Union ever decided to send President Reagan some radioactive airmail, we would be there to sign for it right along with him. I imagined that I had some idea of how awful a nuclear war would be (looking back on it, I was clueless, really), but I also thought that there was a whole lot of nothing I could do about it. If and when the alarms went off and the Emergency Broadcast System interrupted Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck to announce that negotiations between East and West had broken down for the final time, well, I figured that that would be that. I had heard that Soviet ICBMs would take around forty minutes to reach us, whereas submarine-launched missiles would take maybe less than half of that time. We were too close to the city to go anywhere fast, not when hundreds of thousands of other people would be trying to get out of Dodge, too, and points to the south and west of us would likely be hit as well (Dulles Airport and Quantico among them…cue Johnny Cash’s “Ring of Fire”). My only consolation at the time was the knowledge that, while my parents and I were running for the basement with what we could carry, somewhere out there Uncle Sam would be sending the commies a formal protest, one inscribed on the gleaming steel cylinders of thousands of nuclear bombs and missiles of our own – and our stuff was better than theirs. Surely, we wouldn’t lose.

Meanwhile, while I was busy imagining how manfully (or not) I would face The End, a little girl living several hundred miles to the north had considered the same scenario and put her foot down. Enough of this “Will we or won’t we?” business, Samantha Smith decided. It was time to call the Soviets out.

Writing to the newly installed General Secretary of the Soviet Union, Yuri Andropov, in November of 1982, Smith was charmingly polite but to the point:

My name is Samantha Smith. I am ten years old. Congratulations on your new job. I have been worrying about Russia and the United States getting into a nuclear war. Are you going to vote to have a war or not? If you aren't please tell me how you are going to help to not have a war. This question you do not have to answer, but I would like to know why you want to conquer the world or at least our country. God made the world for us to live together in peace and not to fight.

The Soviets received Samantha’s letter and published it in Pravda. Later, in April of 1983, Samantha received a reply from Andropov himself. In it, Andropov complimented her courage and assured her that the Soviet people deplored the idea of nuclear war every bit as much as Americans did:

We want nothing of the kind. No one in our country– neither workers, peasants, writers nor doctors, neither grown-ups nor children, nor members of the government–want either a big or 'little' war.

We want peace—there is something that we are occupied with: growing wheat, building and inventing, writing books and flying into space. We want peace for ourselves and for all peoples of the planet. For our children and for you, Samantha.

Andropov followed this assurance with an invitation for Samantha to visit the Soviet Union, to meet the people, visit a children’s camp and, in short, to “see for yourself: in the Soviet Union, everyone is for peace and friendship among peoples.”

Samantha and her parents accepted Andropov’s invitation, and history was made. The intrepid little girl from Maine became an instant, global celebrity, an inspiration to millions who feared for the future, as well as an object of skepticism on the part those who felt that the Soviet government was using her for propaganda purposes. Dubbed “America’s Youngest Ambassador,” Samantha spent two weeks in the Soviet Union and was impressed with the friendliness of the Soviet people (although she never did meet Yuri Andropov in person, the Soviet leader being seriously ill and in seclusion at the time). Upon returning to the United States, Samantha continued for a time in the public eye, speaking at the Children’s International Symposium in Kobe, Japan, (during which she suggested an “International Granddaughter Exchange” in order to facilitate peace and understanding between opposing countries), interviewing various political figures during the 1984 general election campaign, writing a book about her trip to the Soviet Union, and even starring in a television show.

What more Samantha Smith might have accomplished, and in what direction her budding idealism might have developed, can only be imagined; tragically, both she and her father were killed in a plane crash while traveling home to Maine from California on August 25, 1985. She was thirteen-years-old.

I still remember the media attention that surrounded Samantha Smith and her trip to the Soviet Union. Most of the adults I overheard in conversation at the time were of the opinion that she was being used by the Soviets to put a pleasant face on Communism, and I pretty well took my cue from what I heard. Still, I couldn’t help but be impressed that a kid just like me had captured the world’s attention by the simple act of writing a letter. What Samantha had done challenged my perception of the world as a place where one person could not make a difference, unless that person happened to be rich and famous.

Samantha also challenged me in another important way in that what she had to say about her visit made me really see, for the first time, that the Soviet people were distinct from their government. Prior to that time, I had seen the entire Soviet Union, down to the last individual, as a repressive monstrosity, teeming with evil, dedicated to the destruction of human freedom in general and the United States of America in particular. I would not have been saddened had I heard that the earth had opened up and swallowed the entire country in one righteous gulp. I was only a child then, of course, immature, lacking in knowledge of the world at large, and fiercely loyal to “my side,” as children so often are (and as Samantha Smith herself was at first, given the wording of her letter to Andropov); but my worldview began to mature after Samantha opened the Soviet Union up a little and let us average folk have a look inside. From then on, the tragedy of nuclear war (of war at all, for that matter) took on a new dimension. I no longer saw only American children huddled in their basements in fear of impending annihilation, but Soviet children as well – both equally wanting to live and grow up, both feeling equally helpless as their governments tried to destroy one another for whatever reason.

Now, don’t get me wrong here: none of this should be taken as an apology for the Soviet Union. The Soviet state was, in fact, a repressive monstrosity, second only to Communist China in terms of oppression and murder among the nations of the modern world. Nor was Yuri Andropov the grandfatherly sort of man that Samantha Smith envisioned him when she received his reply to her letter. In reality, Andropov was brutal and ruthless, a true believer in iron-fisted tyranny. He had played a key role in the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Afghanistan, and, had he been younger and in better health when he ascended to the leadership of the Soviet empire, East and West might very well have had that war they so narrowly avoided.

So, no, Yuri Andropov was no kindly old reformed Communist who was trying to display the fruits of his repentance before the world. His invitation to Samantha Smith was a convenient propaganda piece, and a masterful one at that. Whether it was his idea or a bit of public relations magic his handlers conjured up for him, we may never know; but it was a play that would have made Lenin himself crack a chilly smile. It scored the Soviet government some brownie points in the court of international opinion at the time.

That said, however, Samantha’s visit ultimately back-fired on the Soviet government more than it benefited it, and for two reasons in particular: first, by providing a much needed respite in an atmosphere of otherwise unremitting hostility; and second, as I’ve already indicated with regard to myself, her visit caused the American and Soviet people to re-evaluate one another a bit. As the Christmas truce of the First World War demonstrates, the last thing that most governments want is their people mixing with the enemy, as, more often than not, once those peoples come together, they discover that those they have been trained to hate really don’t sleep in coffins or toss babies about on bayonets. The Soviet people impressed Samantha with their – well, humanity – and she opened their eyes a bit as well; the Soviets eventually named a diamond, a mountain and an asteroid after her, and issued a postage stamp with her likeness. At the time of her death, Mikhail Gorbachev wrote:

Everyone in the Soviet Union who has known Samantha Smith will forever remember the image of the American girl who, like millions of Soviet young men and women, dreamt about peace, and about friendship between the peoples of the United States and the Soviet Union.

Samantha once told Nightline’s Ted Koppel that she hoped her efforts on behalf of peace would do some good. Clearly, they did. While Samantha herself never lived to see the Berlin Wall battered to pieces and the hammer-and-sickle lowered from the spires of Moscow to the cheers of hopeful millions, she became a symbol of the courageous vision that brought about those events in the fullness of time.

History’s gallery walls are crowded with the portraits of warriors, conquerors and tyrants, but precious few advocates for peace. And of those few, Samantha Smith is unique; never before or since has anyone so young impacted the world stage, and she did so at an especially crucial time. It is to our shame and detriment that we have largely forgotten her. Today’s troubled world could use an infusion of her optimism and her call for understanding. We could do with a reminder that, although there are truly evil people in the world and we do right in opposing them, far too often we allow ourselves to be overcome by prejudices that blind us in terms of how we perceive other cultures, and how they perceive us.

And so, here’s to you, Samantha, one of the blessed peacemakers, from one of your generation who still remembers. You challenged us. You encouraged us. You gave us hope. You did us proud.

Samantha Smith’s official web page: http://www.samanthasmith.info/

Anthony Gregory on the Causes, Aftermath, and Lessons of 9/11

2009-09-11T16:12:00.002-04:00

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, much has changed about life here in these United States. Much has also changed about the way in which this country conducts itself abroad. The issues at stake have created deep divisions among us: why can't we get Osama bin Laden? was the Iraq war necessary? what do we do now?

In the following wonderful article, Campaign for Liberty editor-in-chief Anthony Gregory examines the causes, aftermath and lessons of 9/11. What he says may be difficult for some to accept, but I feel that it will be impossible to deny:

***

Understanding the Atrocity

Why did it happen? One answer given was that the terrorists simply hated America for its freedom. Those who believed this tended to feel that war was the only answer -- war to punish the evildoers and war to rebuild foreign societies so they would be free and no longer resent us. Another answer given was that the terrorists, although murderous criminals, were exploiting genuine grievances that many people in Muslim countries had against U.S. foreign policy.

Osama bin Laden repeatedly stressed the major objections: The U.S. had been supporting apostate dictatorships in the Muslim world, given one-sided support to Israel, occupied holy land such as the Arabian Peninsula, and enforced brutal sanctions on the Iraqi people that had left hundreds of thousands of Muslims, mostly children, dead.

Americans are warned not to forget what happened eight years ago, but we must not assume history began on that date. Those in the Muslim world tend to have a much longer memory.

In 1953, the CIA helped to oust the once-democratically elected leader of Iran, a man who had been featured as Time Magazine's "Man of the Year" just a year before, and replaced him with the corrupt and brutal Shah, a dictator who ushered in a period of torture, terror and mass inflation. Twenty-six years later we saw the "blowback" -- a term the CIA uses to describe the unintended reaction from American policy abroad -- in the form of the Islamic Revolution. Iran fell under the grip of fundamentalists, but most of the nation would not rally against America for purely cultural reasons. What united them was resentment toward the U.S. meddling in their country.

Meanwhile, as part of the Cold War, the U.S. began supporting agitators in Afghanistan so as to incite a Soviet invasion and bring about an overstretch of the Soviet military. Although today most Americans think of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan at the time as purely defensive against Soviet belligerence, President Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted this was far from the case in a 1998 interview:

"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention."

These U.S.-allied Mujahideen in Afghanistan were championed as "freedom fighters," but many went on to form the basis of the Taliban and al Qaeda. The Taliban became one of the most brutal and backwards regimes on the planet, but as late as May of 2001, the U.S. was sending tens of millions of dollars to the Taliban to finance its war on opium...

***

Read the full article at: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=213

Button, Button

2009-09-06T13:06:00.002-04:00

The 1980s revival of the Twilight Zone series featured an episode entitled "Button, Button," based on a short story by sci-fi veteran Richard Matheson (I Am Legend, What Dreams May Come). In the story, a strange package arrives at the small apartment of Mr. and Mrs. Lewis, who appear to be about one bill away from relocating to a matching set of cardboard boxes. Mrs. Lewis opens the package and discovers that it contains a simple wooden box with a clear plastic lid overtop a large red button (the type of contraption teens might build in a high school woodshop class). Also included is a note advising that someone will be in touch to explain everything.

Later that afternoon, as promised, a mysterious, black-clad gentleman arrives at the apartment and presents Mrs. Lewis with an offer that proves both tempting and frightening. He informs her that she and her husband have two options with regard to the box:

1. Don’t push the button. The man will come back to reclaim the box. No gain, no loss. The end.

2. Push the button, after which two things will happen: "Someone whom you do not know will die. And afterward you will receive $200,000, tax-free."

The stranger then leaves to let the bewildered Mrs. Lewis think over her options.

That night, when Mr. Lewis comes home, the couple argue over whether the offer is real, and, if so, what to do about it. Mr. Lewis decides that it would be unconscionable to press the button, as it would result in murder. His wife disagrees; she wants to go for it. After all, what is the death of someone they don’t know? People die all the time, don’t they? "What if it was some old Chinese peasant, or someone with cancer?" she argues. "And what if it’s someone’s newborn baby?" her husband counters.

After a sleepless night and more arguing, Mrs. Lewis decides that she is owed this opportunity. She opens the box, looking as if she half expects it to bite her, and quickly presses the button. Nothing dramatic or ominous happens... at least not immediately. Later that afternoon, however, the mysterious man in black returns. He presents the Lewises with a briefcase full of cash, and reclaims his button box. Nervously puffing away on a cigarette, Mrs. Lewis asks if someone... "well, you know... " She’s unable to bring herself to say the word "died". "Of course," the man replies matter-of-factly. Then, when she asks him what will happen next, he looks into her eyes and says: "The button unit will be reprogrammed and offered to someone else, the same terms and conditions...I can assure you it will be offered to someone whom you don’t know."

Hardly a day passes when I don’t spend at least some time wondering how it is that America has gone from being a constitutional republic to more of a ‘people’s republic,’ and how much longer I’ll be able to discuss such questions in public before some heavily-armed civil servants kick my door in and haul me off to be shocked or waterboarded into correct thinking. And in considering these issues, I am convinced, now more than ever, that the premise of that old Twilight Zone episode speaks forcibly to the central aspect of our current problem.

It’s all about who we don’t know.

Think about it this way:

How many of the socialists that you see clamoring for more government programs and intervention on TV would, if offered the chance, walk into an average American home (assuming no 2nd Amendment deterrent, of course), raid all of the available wallets and purses in that home, and then go donate the money they confiscate to some charity or politically-correct cause? Can you see Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Barbara Boxer walking into someone’s living room and announcing: "We’re here to tell you what’s best for you and your family. We’ll decide what school your children will attend and what they’ll be taught there. We’ll decide what doctors you can see, what medications you can have, and whether or not you can try alternative treatments. We’ll decide what you can eat and how much of it you can have. We’ll decide what causes you will support with your money and how much you’ll give. We’ll decide how you should fit into society and which of your personal beliefs are a threat to society and should be suppressed. We’ll decide what privileges you will be allowed. And, oh, by the way, we’re also going to force you to maintain the system that will ensure that you abide by our directives. Any attempt to deviate from said directives will result in serious consequences."

Now, granted, there are people who would do things like this if they thought they could get by with it. By and large, however, most people would not. Why? Because confrontations such as what I’ve described above are personal. When you enter someone’s home, or otherwise spend time with them, you can attach a name and a face to them. You can see where and how they live, what difficulties they struggle with, what is dear to them, what their strengths and weaknesses are, what hopes and dreams they may have. Under such circumstances, they are individuals, and they are real to you as individuals. You may think that you know better than they do, but you’re not likely to tell them that, and you’re even less likely to try forcing your views on them.

But while this is generally the rule in individual situations, things change completely come election day, when we find ourselves in the voting both and that curtain swings shut behind us.

Consider an imaginary ballot, and a couple of typical voters:

Option 1 asks Joe Voter whether he favors raising the local sales tax to help pay for a new sports arena. What it’s also asking, albeit in a more subtle form, is whether Joe thinks that his friends and neighbors should have to sacrifice a little more every time they buy anything, so that Joe can get what he wants. But Joe never thinks of it this way. Bob, his next door neighbor, won’t pay the tax; "the city" will. Conveniently, "the city" has no distinct identity. It has no face. Joe doesn’t know "the city," so he feels no guilt in voting for Option 1 and raising Bob’s taxes. Besides, the old arena is a real eyesore; a new one would make Joe feel as if he lived in a more upscale community.

In the booth next to Joe, Barbara reads over Option 2, which asks whether the state’s blue laws should remain in effect, prohibiting the sale of general merchandise prior to 1:30 pm on Sundays. Barbara supports Option 2 because she hates commercialism in general and thinks that people need to slow down more. She and her family could always stay home on Sunday and let everyone else go about their business, of course, but she considers this a "family values" issue and therefore a matter of "what's best for everyone," regardless of whether "everyone" sees it that way or not. Besides, Barbara’s husband owns a car dealership, and if the other dealers were allowed to be open all day on Sunday, then her husband would either have to lose business to them or else open earlier than he would prefer.

We wear such amazingly effective political blinders, don’t we? It’s always "the city," "the county," "the state," or "the country," that pays for what we want and heels to our demands. Never Bob the struggling family man. Never Jill the single mom. Never anyone we know. Never anyone we have to explain ourselves to.

Such is the cold, impersonal ugliness of statism, and the subtle, de-humanizing way in which it works itself into our consciousness. Statists never stop to think about the individuals they harm because, politically speaking, individuals either don’t matter to them or else escape their notice. They consider themselves "big picture" people. They see only society itself, broken down into various competing subgroups to be crunched and graphed like so many numbers ("digital individuals," if you will). Civilization is their political blackboard, filled with social equations waiting to be brought into utopian balance. Statists never see Bob or Jill having to struggle harder to make ends meet because of some new tax. What they see is how nice a brand new stadium would look and how it might "advance the community as a whole." The tax Bob and Jill are forced to pay is just their "fair share" of "doing what’s right for the community," and if Bob and Jill object to it, they’re being "selfish" and "short-sighted." Statists never see Rick from down the street being denied a city contract and an opportunity to expand his business simply because he is not the right color or gender. Instead, what they see is someone who is the right color or gender being given that contract in order to "right past wrongs" done to a particular group, and Rick is assigned a portion of the blame for those wrongs, even though he may never have hurt, discriminated against, or otherwise "wronged" anyone in his life. Statists never see those who are turned down for operations, denied treatments, or else suffer and/or die while waiting for treatment while bureaucrats sedately dot their I’s and cross their T’s in the hubs of their vast, tax-based healthcare bureaucracies. All they can see is that they’re extending aid to yet another faceless group: "the unfortunate."

How easily we put on those robes and crowns. How casually we wield the scepters of little gods, passing out life and death, determining who is worthy of what and how much, deciding what’s right on the most intimate levels for people we don’t even know. We play our own version of the button game, day after day.

Press the button, get a guilt-free program. Some "wealthy" person, some privileged "winner of life’s lottery" will be the one to pay for it, right? Perhaps not, but what does that matter in the greater scheme of things? Press the button, get guilt-free social justice. Praise God, someone’s finally gonna pay! Who? Who cares? That’s beside the point, right? Press the button, get guilt-free regulation. After all, other people don’t always know what’s best for them, but we always know, don’t we? And best of all, when you regulate someone’s life from the privacy of the voting booth or the distance of the council room, you don’t have to put up with insolent questions like: "What right do you have to tell me how to live?" And you don’t have to get your hands dirty, either. Government agencies, police departments, and courts will do all the dirty work: hounding people, fining them, running them out of business, prosecuting them, jailing them, taking their children from them, and sometimes killing them. Most of the time, you’ll never even have to hear about it.

And so down the road we go, playing "button, button" with one another, always hoping to get something from someone we don’t know, or forcing them to live by the dictates of our conscience — never thinking that the button box will be reset and handed to someone who doesn’t know us, giving them their own chance to play God with us and the things we hold most dear.

Folks, we can launch all of the ad campaigns we want, hire the most riveting speakers we can find, and money-bomb the daylights out of the Ron Paul’s and Peter Schiff’s of the world, and we will still lose our freedoms until and unless we can make our fellow citizens see "the city," "the county," "the state," and "the country" as their friends, neighbors and co-workers. We must make them see that their acts of interference in the lives of others forge precedents by which those others are empowered to interfere in their lives. We must bring the cold, impersonal, ugly consequences of statism home in the most personal ways possible. We must make people see the button game for what it is, make them realize that when they step into the voting booth they’re making decisions that affect real people, and not always for the better. For starters, try getting those you know to ask themselves some of the following questions the next time they go to cast a vote:

1. Do I have the right — personally — to do what I’m about to ask government to do on my behalf? If not, how can I give my representatives power that I don’t even possess myself?
2. Would I want someone else to make this sort of decision for me?
3. Is getting my way on this issue worth having someone fined? Is it worth them losing their job? Is it worth sending them to prison? Would it still be worth it if I had to fine them, fire them, or imprison them myself? If not, why would I ask anyone else to do what I am not willing to do myself?
4. What precedent am I setting here? Would I want this sort of power in the hands of the politician or political group I fear the most? Does anyone out there think of me or the politicians and groups I support in that same way already?
5. If a program is supposed to give, what must it first take? From whom will it take it? Could I justify this if I had to face the person I’m voting to take it from?
6. If a program is supposed to provide an opportunity for someone, must it first take that opportunity from someone else? Could I justify taking it if I had to face the affected person?
7. If my community really wants to accomplish something, why must it forcefully collect money for it via taxation? Why can’t sufficient funds be raised privately, through voluntary means?

Some may argue that we shouldn’t "get personal" when it comes to politics, but what they fail to appreciate is that politics is already fundamentally personal. It’s impossible to interfere with the lives of individuals and not affect them personally. If we can make America see this, we can begin to turn the tide, but if not, then the war is lost already, and we’re all just sitting around waiting for our next turn with the button box... and dreading the idea of who may get it after us.

Can Christians Serve in the Modern Army?

2009-05-07T20:48:00.001-04:00

The following is a great article by Pastor Chuck Baldwin, in which he addresses the question of whether Christians can serve in the modern American armed forces with a clear conscience:

***

Can Christians Serve In The New World Order Army?
by Chuck Baldwin
May 7, 2009

Many patriotic Americans, including many retired and former military personnel, are increasingly chagrined at the direction the U.S. armed forces are taking. For one thing, there were numerous instances in the Clinton and both Bush administrations when American GIs were required to serve under foreign or United Nations commanders. Does anyone remember the Michael New case? How can any American GI, who has taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution, willingly surrender himself to a foreign commander, flag, or uniform? That is a potential conflict that has caused many to question modern military service.

Another potential moral conflict in modern military service (at least for Christians) is the inter-sex training and quartering that is now required in every branch of military service (except the Marine Corps). To put healthy young adults of the opposite sex in such close and, many times, compromising environments is more than problematic for those wishing to stay morally pure. (Christian parents should know that many state colleges and universities now require students to live in coed dorms, including using coed bathrooms and showers.) Add to this President Barack Obama's determination to expunge the Department of Defense's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, thereby allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military. All of the above has many Christians questioning the wisdom of giving their sons and daughters to today's U.S. military.

Another disconcerting element of modern military service is the reality that today's American military is more and more being used as the tool of globalists to forge an international New World Order. For instance, both Republican and Democratic Presidential administrations will send U.S. military personnel (including the National Guard) to guard the borders of foreign countries, but never ask them to protect our own borders. Sending the National Guard overseas, especially, strains the principles of constitutional government. But maybe that explains why we have so many foreign troops on U.S. soil. After all, did President George W. Bush not ask foreign troops to monitor our borders and skies in the weeks and months following the attacks on 9/11?

Using U.S. troops as international "peacekeepers" only serves the interests of the international New World Order; it has nothing to do with protecting the lives and property of the American people. In fact, an argument could be made that every war the United States has fought since World War II has been unconstitutionally waged: for the purpose of fulfilling the globalistic aspirations of world leaders and not for the defense of the United States. Accordingly, many Christian parents are hesitant to give their children to modern military service.

If all of the above is not enough, we read this story from Reuters and One News Now: "The U.S. military is confirming that it has destroyed some Bibles belonging to an American soldier serving in Afghanistan.

"Reuters News says the Bibles were confiscated and destroyed after Qatar-based Al Jazeera television showed soldiers at a Bible class on a base with a stack of Bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages. The U.S. military forbids its members on active duty--including those based in places like Afghanistan--from trying to convert people to another religion.

"Reuters quotes Maj. Jennifer Willis at the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul, who said 'I can now confirm that the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera's clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed.'" (Source: OneNewsNow.com, 5/5/09)

For any Christian, this episode highlights a very serious conflict of duty. Any genuine Christian must take his Lord's command to "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" very seriously. In fact, how can any Christian not witness to others--whoever they are--of Christ's redeeming grace? To refuse to do so amounts to willful rejection of Christ, in which case, it is doubtful that genuine salvation is even present.

Therefore, how can a Christian dutifully obey his Savior and Lord on the one hand, while, at the same time, obeying a military order forbidding him or her from "trying to convert people"? And how could any genuine Christian chaplain willingly confiscate and DESTROY God's Holy Word? I could be mistaken, but I don't believe even Adolf Hitler burned Bibles. He burned a lot of books, but I've never read that he burned God's Word.

Now, no one has more respect and admiration for military personnel than I do. My dad and his two brothers proudly served their country in World War II. One brother served in the U.S. Marines and was wounded in the Pacific. The other served in the Navy, and Dad was selected to work on the Atomic Bomb. I have a nephew who served in the Marines in Gulf War I, and some of my closest friends are former, retired, or active-duty military.

I feel the same way about law enforcement personnel. In my youth, law enforcement was my chosen career. Some of my dearest friends are either retired or active-duty law enforcement officers. It is a noble profession.

We have to be honest enough to admit, however, that both the U.S. military and many of our law enforcement agencies are being co-opted by a politically correct leadership that is in the process of changing the rules of conduct--not to mention the rules of engagement.

Our military personnel are more and more resembling international policemen, while our local and state peacekeepers resemble military forces. Neither bodes well for U.S. sovereignty and independence, or for liberty at home.

When we have federal police agents, with no justification or authority, brutally beating an innocent pastor; when FBI agents use the Patriot Act to seize an obviously innocent teen-age boy from his home, and then afford him no constitutional rights; when U.S. military personnel are required to wear U.N. blue and take orders from foreign commanders; when U.S. military personnel are used as international policemen; when military chaplains are ordered to not pray in Jesus' name and to confiscate and destroy Bibles; and when soldiers are commanded to not witness for Christ or share their faith; then it is apparent that the role of both the U.S. military and law enforcement are being dramatically altered--and not for the better.

It is for good reason that many Christians (and non-Christians, for that matter) are looking twice at modern military service. In fact, a retired high-ranking military officer (whose name I will not divulge) recently told me, "Chuck, there is no way I could recommend that anyone volunteer in the U.S. military today."

Obviously, we have a host of honorable men and women of sound character and conviction still serving in both the U.S. military and in various law enforcement agencies. Thank God!

It is also obvious, however, that the powers that be are quickly "remaking" (to use Barack Obama's word) our military and law enforcement agencies into an image never desired or designed by America's Founding Fathers. Thus, the conflict between good men and bad policies will only worsen. And many will continue to question the wisdom of giving their sons and daughters to modern military service.

On the other hand, an argument could be made that it is at such a time as this that good men are all the more needed in the U.S. military and in law enforcement. That is a very valid argument, by the way: as long as those good men realize what they will be required to risk when their superiors order them to surrender allegiance to the Constitution or to sacred principle. But then again, we are all required to share in that risk, are we not?

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090507.html

Upcoming Interview - the "Our Constitution" Show

2009-05-01T17:04:00.002-04:00

For anyone who might be interested, I've agreed to be interviewed on the Tuesday, May 5th edition of the "Our Constitution" show on the Patriot's Heart Broadcasting Network. The interview will focus on the Constitution, state sovereignty, and such related issues as nullification and secession.

You can listen online here: http://www.patriotsheartnetwork.net/

TSA detains a man for carrying U.S. currency

2009-04-02T16:20:00.004-04:00

In another sign of our times, the TSA in St. Louis recently detained a man who was carrying $4,700. What this has to do with public safety, I don't know. Last I heard, cash does not explode, nor do most people find it very threatening, although some of the portraits on the bills do leave me feeling a bit nauseated (particularly $5, $10 and $50 bills).

What makes this all the more interesting, however, was that the detainee was able to record much of his conversation with the TSA thugs. It's illuminating to say the least. Note the part where a TSA rep exclaimed "Are you from this planet?" when he asked them what law required him to answer their questions about where he got his money from.

Flyer beware.

Trillion dollar deficits?

2009-03-20T18:07:00.005-04:00

In the latest news from the Twilight Zone, it seems that we're heading for $1 trillion deficit territory and the Obama administration isn't blinking an eye. What makes this even more incredible is that these deficits are predicted to prevail for the next DECADE. $1 trillion deficits each year for the NEXT TEN YEARS!!!

I wish someone would Photoshop pics of Obama and Ben Bernanke onto the famous ending shot from "Thelma and Louise," where they're driving over the cliff. The car could be labeled "U.S. economy". Heck, why not just label it "America"? Add a little "Yes we can" bumper sticker to complete the look.

Sadly, I don't have Photoshop, nor do I have sufficient talent as an artist to draw a good political cartoon of this. Maybe someone else out there can tackle it.

When in Rome...

2009-03-17T21:44:00.003-04:00

Given the current state of our affairs, and the direction our leaders seem determined to take us in, I can't help but think that the United States of America should scrap the Bald Eagle as its national symbol in favor of a violin and a pack of matches.

Naomi Wolf on the Justice Department's "Secret Memos"

2009-03-04T17:28:00.002-05:00

Naomi Wolf, writing in the Huffington Post:

If history gets this recent era right, future textbooks will have to show that the US narrowly averted a carefully planned but thorough and unmistakable conspiracy to subvert the rule of law and the process of democracy from 2001-2008. For three years, since writing End of America, I have been arguing that the Bush team sought irretrievably to subvert our liberty. Fortunately, this appalling and conceivably irrevocable subversion of the tenets of freedom was narrowly averted by citizens at every level -- from the grassroots to the courts -- resisting in time. But the release this week by the Justice Department of the "secret memos" sought valiantly by the ACLU confirms that Bush's legal architects were building up the framework for something even scarier than our most anguished projections...

Read the full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/john-yoos-legal-groundwor_b_171552.html

Morgan Freeman on Black History Month

2009-02-25T12:50:00.002-05:00

The following is a priceless clip from Mike Wallace's interview with Morgan Freeman. Freeman bucks the system with his comments about Black History Month and racism in America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO214IFRW1M

Abraham Lincoln and the Road to War

2009-01-18T17:23:00.008-05:00

Abraham Lincoln and the Road to War

“So viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the government, and so to resist force employed for its destruction by force for its preservation.” – Abraham Lincoln, address to Congress in special session, July 4, 1861.

One of the most persistent myths surrounding Abraham Lincoln and the War of Secession is that the Confederacy started the war by committing a naked act of aggression against the United States, namely by attacking Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. Those who followed Ron Paul’s campaign for President may remember David Shuster raising this point in defense of Lincoln when Dr. Paul appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, back in December of 2007. At that time, Dr. Paul was under fire for having suggested that Lincoln should not have engaged the country in “a senseless civil war,” remarks he made during an interview with Tim Russert on “Meet the Press.”

And while it is true that the Confederacy did attack Sumter, most Americans are unaware of the circumstances that led to the attack, including Lincoln’s rather significant behind-the-scenes role in it. For that reason, I would like to take some time to share my research into those days in the hope that it may disperse the cobwebs in a particularly dark and neglected corner of Lincoln’s legacy. Some may wonder if this sort of discussion is even relevant to our modern political debate, but I would argue that it is, if for no other reason than because our federal government is currently operating in line with Lincoln’s ideology and our presidents trip over themselves to emulate his example. As far as the power-elite are concerned, there is but one god, the State, and Lincoln is its prophet. They will defend his legacy to the death because their power and the institutions upon which it rests, along with all that they yet hope to build, stands on the lanky shoulders of our sixteenth president and ideology behind his “people’s contest”.

If we wish to return America to its constitutional foundation, it is crucial for us to understand the truth about the man who so dramatically turned it away from that foundation, and the basis upon which he did so. It is, therefore, my hope that those who have unquestioningly accepted the traditional view of Lincoln's integrity might find reasons to reconsider him based on what they read here, and that any future independence movement in these United States will learn from the mistakes of the past rather than repeat them.

The following discussion is taken from part two of my book, One Nation Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution.

Charleston on the Eve of War

In 1860, Charleston harbor was guarded by three key military installations: Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinckney, and Fort Sumter, the latter of which was located on an artificial island in the midst of the harbor and was unoccupied at that time. Major Robert Anderson, a Kentuckian, was in charge of the harbor’s defenses, and both he and his garrison were stationed in Fort Moultrie. Anderson, whom Jefferson Davis later referred to as “a true soldier and a man of the finest sense of honor,” was sympathetic to the Southern states but felt that his duty required him to act first and foremost as an officer in the United States military. For that reason, Anderson was troubled when it became apparent that South Carolina would likely secede in the wake of Abraham Lincoln’s election to the presidency.

On November 28, 1860, Anderson wrote to his superiors in Washington and requested instructions. He was afraid that he and his garrison might come under attack if South Carolina seceded, and while he was “anxious…indeed, determined, so far as honor will permit-to avoid collision with the citizens of South Carolina,” he had also determined that he would not surrender his garrison without a direct order from Washington. Anderson also requested additional reinforcements and stated that he thought he could defend himself better if he were allowed to place troops in Fort Sumter.

On December 1, Adjutant-General Samuel Cooper responded to Anderson that he was, per the instructions of Secretary of War John B. Floyd, to defend himself if attacked, but otherwise to conduct himself in such a way “as to be free from the charge of initiating a collision”. These instructions were reiterated on December 11, when Anderson was visited by Don Carlos Buell, assistant to the Adjutant-General. Anderson’s orders from Buell were to “hold possession of the forts in the harbor” and to defend himself “to the last extremity” if attacked, but to “carefully” avoid “every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression.” He was authorized to occupy any of the forts if he was attacked or had reason to believe that he might be, but he was not “without evident and imminent necessity, to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude.” These orders were further reiterated in a personal letter from Secretary Floyd to Anderson on December 21, 1860, in which Anderson was ordered to “hold possession of the forts in the harbor of Charleston,” and to defend himself if attacked but to “exercise a sound military discretion” and to do nothing provocative.

South Carolina’s state convention unanimously voted to secede from the Union on December 20, 1860, one day prior to the follow-up communication from Secretary Floyd to Anderson; and the state immediately dispatched commissioners to Washington to negotiate for the peaceful transference of Charleston’s forts. At this time Anderson became especially vigilant regarding the attitude of South Carolinians toward his garrison, and grew more fearful of an impending attack with each passing day as the “Palmetto Republic” got underway. And while he was not certain what South Carolina’s intentions toward him and his garrison might be in the long run, he definitely knew that the state wished no change in the “military situation” in the harbor. Writing to his superiors on December 22, Anderson stated:

I have heard from several sources that last night and the night before a steamer was stationed between this island and Fort Sumter. That the authorities of South Carolina are determined to prevent, if possible, any troops from being placed in that fort…No one call tell what will be done. They may defer action until their commissioners return from Washington; or if apprised by the nature of the debates in Congress that their demands will not probably be acceded to, they may act without waiting for them.

For it is important that all your movements be kept as secret as possible. Accordingly on approaching the Charleston bar, you will place below decks your entire force, in order that only the ordinary crew may be seen by persons from the shore or on boarding the vessel. Every precaution must be resorted to prevent being fired upon by batteries erected on either Sullivan’s or James Island.

I have the honor, therefore, respectfully to ask whether the above mentioned act…was committed in obedience to your instructions, and to notify you, if it be not disclaimed, that I must regard it as an act of war, and that I shall not, after a reasonable time for the return of my messenger, permit any vessels to pass within range of the guns of my fort.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority…beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere…

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ‘preserve, protect, and defend it’.

The proposition presented by Mr. Fox, so sincerely entertained and ably advocated, would be entitled to my favorable consideration if, with all the light before me and in the face of so many distinguished military authorities on the other side, I did not believe that the attempt to carry it into effect would initiate a bloody and protracted conflict…

No practical benefit will result to the country or the Government by accepting the proposal alluded to, and I am therefore of opinion that the cause of humanity and the highest obligation to the public interest would be best promoted by adopting the counsels of those brave and experienced men whose suggestions I have laid before you.

I had the honor to receive by yesterday’s mail the letter of the honorable Secretary of War, dated April 4, and confess that what he there states surprises me very greatly…I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout our country. It is, of course, now too late for me to give any advice in reference to the proposed scheme of Captain Fox. I fear that its result cannot fail to be disastrous to all concerned...

I ought to have been informed that this expedition was to come. Colonel Lamon’s remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced. That God will still avert it, and cause us to resort to pacific measures to maintain our rights, is my ardent prayer.

I am directed by the President of the United States to notify [you] to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in provisions, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice or in case of an attack upon the fort.

Yet the Secretary of State was not impeached and brought to trial for the grave offense of undertaking to conduct the most momentous and vital transactions that had been or could be brought before the government of the United States, without the knowledge and in opposition to the will of the President, and for having involved the government in dishonor, if not disaster.

In any conflict…between the government and the seceding States, it is very important that the traitors shall be the aggressors, and that they be kept constantly and palpably in the wrong. The first attempt…to furnish supplies or reinforcements to [Fort] Sumter will induce aggression by South Carolina, and then the government will stand justified, before the entire country, in repelling that aggression, and retaking the forts.

The firing on that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has ever seen. Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet’s nest which extends from mountains to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal.

The only resolution of these contradictory positions was for the Confederates to fire the first shot. The attempt to relieve Fort Sumter provoked them to do just that.

The selection of delegates in some northern states was so manipulated by Republican governors and legislatures as to prevent an adjustment, and some delegates were instructed to resist compromise…Douglas appealed to Lincoln to intervene with the Republicans in order to save the conference, but his gesture was not successful.

But that the [Confederate] commissioners themselves attempted to delude and deceive Seward by tacitly encouraging his belief in eventual Southern return there is no doubt! [Martin] Crawford admitted as much when early in March he notified Toombs that he had acquiesced in Seward’s plea for delay, on condition that the existing status be rigidly preserved. “His reasons, and my own, it is proper to say, are as wide apart as the poles; he is fully persuaded that peace will bring about a reconstruction of the Union, whilst I feel confident it will build up and cement our Confederacy, and put us beyond the reach of either his arms or his diplomacy.” He did not tell Seward that!

It is thus seen that the assault upon and reduction of Fort Sumter was in no sense a matter of self defense on the part of the assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the fort could by no possibility commit aggression upon them.

They knew – they had been expressly notified – that the giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison was all which would on that occasion be attempted, unless themselves, by resisting so much, should provoke more.

We do not desire needlessly to bombard Fort Sumter. If Major Anderson will state the time at which, as indicated by him, he will evacuate, and agree that in the mean time he will not use his guns against us, unless our should be employed against Fort Sumter, you are authorized thus to avoid the effusion of blood. If this or its equivalent be refused, reduce the fort as your judgment decides to be most practicable.

Beauregard informed Anderson of Secretary Walker’s reply, and early on the morning of April 12, 1861, Anderson responded as follows:

GENERAL: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your second communication…and to state, in reply, that, cordially uniting with you in the desire to avoid the useless effusion of blood, I will, if provided with the proper and necessary means of transportation, evacuate Fort Sumter by noon on the 15th instant, should I not receive, prior to that time, controlling instructions from my Government, or additional supplies; and that I will not in the mean time, open my fire upon your forces unless compelled to do so by some hostile act against this fort, or the flag of my Government, by the forces under your command, or by some portion of them, or by the perpetration of some act showing a hostile intention on your part against this fort or the flag it bears.

They knew that this Government desired to keep the garrison in the fort, not to assail them, but merely to maintain visible possession, and thus to preserve the Union from actual and immediate dissolution – trusting, as hereinbefore stated, to time, discussion, and the ballot-box, for final adjustment; and they assailed and reduced the fort for precisely the reverse object – to drive out the visible authority of the Federal Union, and then force it to immediate dissolution.

And having said to them in the inaugural address, “You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors,” he took pains not only to keep this declaration good but also to keep the case so free from the power of ingenious sophistry that the world should not be able to misunderstand it. By the affair at Fort Sumter, with its surrounding circumstances, that point was reached.

Then and thereby the assailants of the Government began the conflict of arms, without a gun in sight or in expectancy to return their fire, save only the few in the fort, sent to that harbor years before for their own protection, and still ready to give that protection in whatever was lawful. In this act, discarding all else, they have forced upon the country the distinct issue, “immediate dissolution or blood.”

You must allow me to say that in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that gurates or begins the conflict. Hallam has well said that “the aggressor in a war (that is, he who begins it,) is not the first who uses force, but the first who renders force necessary”.

Which side, according to that high authority…was the aggressor in this instance? Which side was it that provoked and rendered the first blow necessary? The true answer to that question will settle the fact as to which side began the war.

The Obsolete Man

2008-12-31T21:51:00.001-05:00

One of my all-time favorite Twilight Zone episodes, "The Obsolete Man," is the story of a future in which the state has become absolutely supreme and those who hold to ideas like belief in God are judged "obsolete" and subsequently executed. Burgess Meredith is wonderful in the role of a librarian who has been deemed obsolete but refuses to go quietly into the night. His showdown with the "man of the State" is classic. Even if you don't like sci-fi in general, you may find this 30 minute program exceptionally thought-provoking and relevant to our troubled time.

Click here to watch.

Enabling Tyranny: An Open Letter to Conservative Republicans

2008-11-07T18:07:00.005-05:00

In the days leading up to Election 2008, the fear among conservative Republicans was palpable. It hung over conservative websites and mailing lists and talk radio, and particularly over fundamental and evangelical churches, like an amber haze on a muggy summer day; the kind of day when you feel as if you could take the air in your hands and wring it out like a wet rag. The anti-Obama emails flew fast and thick. Churches held prayer vigils the likes of which I can’t remember seeing before. Nor was this the usual type of partisanship and rancor we see every major election year; the fear was real and it ran deep. Obama was dangerous, and, to make things worse, he was also young, energetic, and fantastically popular (like Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Elvis, all rolled into one). By contrast, John McCain looked exactly like what he was: an angry old man, the aged standard-bearer for a besieged army that could already smell defeat. In a desperate move, the GOP threw Sarah Palin into the mix, apparently hoping that she might rally the base like a modern day Joan of Arc. But the GOP leadership isn’t exactly famous for its grasp of history. They didn’t realize that things went rather badly for poor Joan in the end. The media knew all about it though, and did its best to stage a re-enactment.

And now that the dust is settling, the general attitude among conservative Republicans – again, especially religious conservatives – reminds me of the behavior of a dog that expects to be kicked. The shadow of Obama looms large.

To those who feel this way, I sympathize with you. I truly do. Backed by a Democratic congress, Obama is set up to cause all kinds of harm to this country and the cause of freedom in general. There may be some hope for us, though. Judge Andrew Napolitano feels that Obama may be better on civil liberties than Bush ever was. Additionally, Obama strikes me as being wishy-washy, meaning that he may get so bogged down in trying to please all of his party’s various constituencies that he might not make much headway. Time alone will tell (or maybe Joe Biden will slip up again and be honest with us).

In the meantime, while the GOP is busily rubbing at that boot-print on its rear end and wondering what to do next, let me ask you conservative Republicans out there a question:

Do you realize that what scares you the most about Obama and his democratic allies is largely your own fault?

I’m not talking about a failure to get the vote out for McCain (God help us), or the general ins and outs of campaign strategy. Rather, I’m talking about the powers that you have allowed Washington DC to consolidate, particularly during the last seven-and-a-half years.

You couldn’t see the wolf in Republican clothing. You trusted George W. Bush and his congressional allies because they had that all-important R behind their names. So you looked the other way while they tore the Constitution to shreds and stomped on it. You excused the abuses of power, the torture, the signing statements, the “unitary executive” rhetoric, the wars waged against populations that had done us no harm, the raids against war protestors and other suspicious characters, the destruction of the dollar, the increased federal control in everything from education to healthcare; and just because the “good guys” were doing it, you thought everything would work out fine. You handed government a sword because you trusted the hand that would wield it, and because it had that good ‘ole “Made in the U.S.A.” label on it. And now that a new hand is reaching for it, you fear that you may soon find the edge of that sword pressed to your own throat.

Shame on you, conservative Republicans! You had a chance to roll back the big government agenda. You had a chance to oppose unnecessary warfare. You had a chance to rein-in a runaway presidency. You had a chance to hold your representatives accountable. You had a chance to demand respect for the laws that defend our most sacred liberties. And in the end, you even had a chance to redeem yourselves by choosing a presidential candidate who could have halted or even reversed much of the damage caused by Bush and company. You had a chance to weaken the federal establishment so that it could not become a threat to you, your children, or the world in general. You had a chance to restore the Republic. But, again, you chose to see nothing but that all-important party label. You enabled the tyranny you now dread. You created a monster because you thought that you could control it, and now that control of that monster will soon go over to the other side, you’re starting to see it for the evil thing that it is.

Well, you’ve made your bed of nails, and now we’ll all have to lie in it for at least awhile. How long that lasts depends on how many of you determine to go from “party first” to “freedom first.” To be fair, some of you did speak up against the outrages committed by George W. Bush and his congressional and judicial collaborators, but most of you did not. Most of you looked the other way. Many of you actually applauded. Be that as it may. You know who you are. The question of the hour is: what will you do now? Will you fight to take the sword out of Washington’s hands? Will you work to dismantle the monster you helped to build?

Or will you just bide your time until you think you’ve got a good chance to get control of them again? Is tyranny acceptable, as long as it’s a tyranny you approve of? And one under which you, theoretically, will not become “the enemy”?

Think about it over the next four years.

Naomi Wolf and the "End of America"

2008-10-31T20:42:00.004-04:00

Those of you who are as concerned as I am about America's descent into police-state USA should appreciate Naomi Wolf's new film "The End of America." The film is based on her bestselling book of the same title, and illustrates the ten ways in which would-be dictators shut down free societies.

The examples provided in the film are as current as the GOP convention protest arrests. Having watched it this evening, I can also say that it is probably the best produced "freedom movement" film I've seen to date. It looks very professional, and conveys its message clearly: America, wake up or else.

You can watch the whole film here:
http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/the_end_of_america/

The official film site, where you can order copies, is here:
http://endofamericamovie.com/

Naomi Wolf's website is here:
http://naomiwolf.org/

Finally, as a bonus (act now!), you can listen to a great interview Lew Rockwell recently conducted with Ms. Wolf, although she ends up interviewing him to some degree as well. It's a great listen, especially if you've ever had questions as to how practical libertarian ideals really are:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-10-30_058_americas_slow_motion_fascist_coup.mp3

As the old campfire tune goes, pass it on. Ms. Wolf is one brave lady. I wish we had a million more like her.

Is Chuck Norris Joining the Revolution?

2008-09-15T13:57:00.003-04:00

In his latest article, "The Coming Revolution," Chuck Norris, a former Mike Huckabee supporter and occasional Fox News commentator, praises Ron Paul and calls for a voter revolution to remove most of Washington's little Caesars from their thrones:

Most Americans have grown cold over partisan politics. They cringe over the political power plays and pollution emitting from the Capitol. They expect that their representatives will stand for special interests or their own, rather than the people's. Americans are sick and tired of politics as usual. And the fact is: Only a voter revolution is strong enough to change the current tides of corruption.

Also, from what I hear, Norris quotes from Ron Paul's book, "The Revolution: A Manifesto," several times in his new book, "Black Belt Patriotism."

Welcome to the revolution, Chuck Norris!

Fred Reed on Guns for Self Defense

2008-07-18T14:53:00.002-04:00

The following is an excellent article by Fred Reed on "Guns for Defense". In it, Fred responds to someone who wrote an article advising people that they shouldn't use guns for self-defense due, among other reasons, to the assumption that all most criminals want is your TV. Fred throws cold water on that idiotic notion, and reminds us of why the phrase "taking out the trash" is so fitting:

Excerpt:

But what I dislike most about Smith’s advice is his advocacy of helpless passivity. It embodies a profound change in American attitudes, which once favored self-reliance. Now it’s reliance on the group. Don’t take primary responsibility for your defense. No, that would be violent, or scary, or macho, and all. No, let the criminals do whatever they want with you, rely on their merciful natures, and call 911 if you survive.

This is exactly what Smith advocates. If I were a criminal, I would love this guy.

Full column:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Smith.shtml

2008-07-03T18:08:00.005-04:00

The "Higher Powers": Martial Law vs. Christian Responsibility

It is one thing to know something intellectually, and quite another to see it suddenly happen before your eyes. I experienced such a moment in 2005, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when I watched (via the Internet) as police officers went door-to-door in New Orleans neighborhoods, forced law-abiding citizens into the streets, cuffed them, and then searched their homes for firearms before leaving them bewildered and helpless. There were no warrants involved. No probable cause was mentioned. No charges of wrong-doing were filed. Intimidation and brute force were the order of the day. And as much as I wish I could believe otherwise, I’m afraid that what we saw in New Orleans is merely a preview of coming attractions.

Since September 11, 2001, the federal government has been busily advancing preparations for the day when it might impose martial law throughout the United States, thus presenting us with the specter of the sort of thugery we witnessed in New Orleans being carried out all across this “land of the free.” A quasi-legal apparatus has already been put into place for this, via such legislation as the PATRIOT Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the National Security and Homeland Security Directive. But legislation, although important in creating the illusion of legitimacy, is only one of the two boots with which the authoritarian state tramples freedom; the other is propaganda, and it is even more essential than force because it allows the state to conquer by stealth, and thus with a minimum of effort.

The state that employs only force to achieve its aims will rule only as long as it can subdue the people; but if it can successfully use propaganda, it can rule indefinitely because the people will subdue themselves. Propaganda deludes the slave into seeing his servitude as sacrifice, even as an honor. It transforms political prisoners into the enemies of the people, turns massacres into purgings, makes partisanism look like saintly perseverance, sells torture as retribution, portrays dissent as sabotage, and masks aggression in the guise of crusading. As Adolf Hitler observed in Mein Kampf, “By an able and persistent use of propaganda heaven itself can be presented to the people as if it were hell and, vice versa, the most miserable kind of life can be presented as if it were paradise."

And of all the varied forms of propaganda, religious propaganda is by far the most effective; for, it provides fallible men with the sanction of heaven, which must not be resisted nor even questioned. Our government is well aware of this and, from all indications, is ready to use religious propaganda in order to help pacify the American population in the event that martial law is declared.

For years, rumors circulated to the effect that the U.S. government would use members of the clergy in efforts to pacify Americans should martial law ever be declared. Many scoffed at the idea, calling it so much conspiracy theory nonsense. Then, in 2007, KSLA Channel 12 in Shreveport, Louisiana, reported that, following Hurricane Katrina, “clergy response teams” were utilized to assist the government with public relations (click here to watch the video). According to the story, such teams will likely be used in future emergency situations, with an emphasis on their potential role in a martial law scenario. Here’s a quote from the story:

Such clergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. “In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they’re helping to diffuse that situation,” assured Sandy Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.

A member of one such clergy response team, Dr. Durell Tuberville, was interviewed by KSLA, and stated that Christians have a responsibility to obey the government, no matter what. “The government’s established by the Lord,” said Tuberville. “That’s what we believe in the Christian faith. That’s what’s stated in the scripture.

As a Christian myself, I understand where people like Dr. Tuberville are coming from. I remember my ninth grade Government teacher telling our class (Christian school, mind you) that Soviet citizens had no right to defy their government because, no matter how oppressive the Soviet State was, it was “ordained by God” (when asked about whether the American patriots were right to rebel against England, however, he equivocated). This reasoning is based on several passages of scripture, but particularly on the following remarks made by the Apostle Paul in Romans, chapter 13 (as the KSLA news story pointed out):

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.

With these things in mind, I’d like to take some time to examine the issue of how Christians should react to the prospect of martial law in America.

Government officials are not the highest “authorities” in America

The first thing I would like to point out to people like Dr. Tuberville, who think Christians should obey government officials no matter what because they are “the higher powers,” is that there is another, yet higher power to which even such officials are beholden: the Constitution of the United States.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. Article VI, Section 1.

It is from the Constitution that our elected officials, both federal and state, derive their office and legitimate powers. Their powers are delegated, not inherent; concrete, not elastic, and, as clearly set forth by the 9^th and 10^th Amendments, they are limited to the specific areas of authority that the Constitution either grants to the Union or denies to the states. Further, our elected officials are “bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution and its provisions, including the limitations placed upon their own powers:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution… (Article VI, Section 3).

Thus, in taking up the powers and responsibilities of political office, our elected officials are also agreeing to place themselves under the law. This is one of the foundational ideas of the American political system: the concept that everyone is under law and equal in its eyes. For this reason, if government officials violate the Constitution, their actions are illegal and void of authority, and they are no better than common criminals. It is absolutely critical that Christians understand this when they contemplate their relationship to the government. Our elected officials are not the source of their own power; rather, they are representatives who have been entrusted with the authority of the American people as defined in the United States Constitution. If they violate that trust, they are as much criminals as the guy who robs your local 7-11 store; they just dress better, make other people use the guns, and almost never go to jail.

Martial Law is Unconstitutional and, therefore, Illegal

The Constitution does not directly address martial law; however, it does contain a provision that clearly makes martial law impossible. Consider Article IV, Section IV:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Republican government is civil, representative government; martial law is military rule. Since the former is specifically guaranteed here, the latter is necessarily precluded. This provision, which our government officials are sworn to support as being part of the supreme law of the land, makes martial law unconstitutional and thus illegal. The moment that martial law is declared, the federal government will have stepped outside of its sphere of lawful powers. In fact, in a very real way it will have conducted a revolution, as it will have overthrown the legitimate government of the Constitution by force of arms.

The President is Commander in Chief, not Dictator in Chief

The “war powers” of the President are a woefully misunderstood aspect of constitutional law, thanks primarily to the success of Abraham Lincoln’s war and further developments under those who inherited his theory of government. Said theory boils down to the idea that, technically, anything the government does in order to “safe-guard” the country (really its own power) is constitutional.

The Constitution itself differs with that idea. It describes the “war powers” of the President in Article II, Section II, where we read:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.

That’s it. That is the sum total of all the Constitution has to say about the war powers of the President. Everything else that has developed since the adoption of the Constitution where such powers are concerned, from ‘peace-keeping’ missions to covert operations, is extra-constitutional (and largely a perversion of the war powers the Constitution grants to Congress in Article I). Indeed, the military powers that presidents exercise today would have seemed kingly to our country’s founders. Under the American system, presidents were to be limited chief executives, not self-empowering monarchs who could overthrow the rights of the people or commit the country’s military to action for any reason whatsoever. The history of centuries of blood-letting under the crowned heads of Europe had taught Americans better than to trust such powers in the hands of one individual. They forgot that lesson rather quickly once they were free to determine their own affairs, but that initial understanding is enshrined in the Constitution’s language to this day, and the reasoning behind it is still just as sound.

The Commander in Chief clause, read as it is plainly written, gives the President authority to act as a sort of commanding general of all U.S. armed forces in their constitutional role of providing for the common defense. It makes him a unifying military leader, capable of coordinating the country’s defenses in order to repel an aggressor; it does not make him a dictator, nor does it authorize him to use the military offensively or for law enforcement purposes. Note that the authority granted in Article II, Section II is military, not civilian, and that it does not release the President from his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, nor does it revoke the right of the states to a republican form of government.

In response, some will undoubtedly argue that we now face dangers that our country’s founders could not have envisioned, and, for that reason, certain things must change. But the founders provided us with a means of changing the Constitution in the face of new circumstances or new wishes on the part of the people. We call this provision the “Amendment Process” (see Article V). So why is it that our leaders are not using this legitimate, constitutional tool, if indeed they believe that they require additional powers in order to meet modern challenges, and if indeed their motives are pure? Defenders of the Bush administration and its congressional allies (particularly Christians seeking to invoke Romans 13) should give serious thought to this question.

Consider that nearly seven years have elapsed since the September 11, 2001 attacks, and yet, in all that time, in spite of all the powers that Bush and Congress have usurped, they have not once prepared or even suggested a constitutional amendment to legitimize any of it. And the reason for this? Quite simply, they don’t believe they need to legitimize their actions. They do not recognize any authority above themselves, neither the Constitution of the United States nor the people who elected them.

Beware Government Agents quoting Scripture

The common perception of propaganda is that it is the art of telling lies, but in fact lies are only part of the picture. No, the true master of propaganda is skilled not only in telling outright lies, but also in employing distortion and half-truth.

For an example of this, consider Romans 13 again. The standard snake oil sold by the Dr. Tuberville’s of the world (unwittingly or not), where this passage is concerned, is that government is the “higher power” and must be obeyed in all things. This is what you’re likely to hear when a clergy response team member shows up on your doorstep, flanked by national guardsmen and demanding that you hand over your firearms, supplies, and/or valuables, or that you accompany them to Hotel Halliburton. Yet, as we have already seen, the Constitution, not the government, is the highest “power” in the United States of America, and those who act outside of it are criminals.

Note also that the Apostle Paul was arguing that Christians should support the “higher powers” because government is ordained by God to be “an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” “Rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior,” Paul tells us, “but for evil,” after which he admonishes us to be “in subjection not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.” So what then of a government which, instead of punishing evil, actually practices evil itself? Can Paul have been suggesting that Christians should view the evil actions of a lawless power as somehow bearing the approval of God? Can a Christian either condone or submit to evil doings “for conscience’ sake”? Is it possible to do good by sanctioning, submitting to, or participating in evil? As Paul himself was fond of saying, “God forbid!”

When in Rome?

At this point, some might argue that the Roman Empire was evil in many ways, and that if Paul informed Christians that they needed to be in subjection to such a regime, surely today’s Christians have no excuse for resisting the will of the U.S. government, constitutional questions aside. And while I would agree that Rome was certainly a ruthless and brutal government, there are three important things that should be kept in view here:

1) Rome did not rule under a supreme Constitution such as we have.

2) While Paul instructed Christians to recognize Roman rule, he never once suggested that they should sanction or participate in Roman brutality. Indeed, the Bible contains a number of passages that instruct us to aid the oppressed (not to aid in their oppression):

Proverbs 24:10-12: “If you are slack [weak, feeble] in the day of distress, your strength is limited. Deliver those who are being taken away to death, and those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold {them} back. If you say, "See, we did not know this," Does He not consider {it} who weighs the hearts? And does He not know {it} who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?”

Isaiah 1:16-17: “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow.”

Jeremiah 21:12: “O house of David, thus says the LORD: ‘Administer justice every morning; And deliver the {person} who has been robbed from the power of {his} oppressor, that My wrath may not go forth like fire and burn with none to extinguish {it,} because of the evil of their deeds.’”

Jeremiah 22:2-3: “Thus says the LORD, ‘Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of {his} oppressor. Also do not mistreat {or} do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.’”

The above passages make it clear that no one who claims to fear God should have anything to do with oppressing the innocent; but, rather, they should actively “reprove” those who do such things and “deliver” those who are being victimized. Genesis 14 tells the story of how Abraham attacked and overcame a group of kings who had taken his nephew, Lot, captive; and, in Job 29, we’re told that, among the good deeds Job was known for, he “delivered the poor who cried for help, and the orphan who had no helper,” and “broke the jaws of the wicked and snatched the prey from his teeth.” The Bible refers to both Abraham and Job as “righteous” and “upright.” Further, in I Timothy 5:8, the Apostle Paul, who wrote Romans 13, remarks: “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Surely “providing” for one’s own involves protecting them from those who would do them harm.

3) Two recorded instances from the Apostle Paul’s own life demonstrate that a Christian need not submit to injustice simply because it is perpetrated by agents of the state. Both examples come to us from the book of Acts.

The first is recorded in Acts 22, where Roman authorities questioned Paul in relation to his part in a riot that had just taken place in Jerusalem. Not satisfied with his answers, the Roman “chief captain” ordered that Paul be subjected to a bit of enhanced interrogation, 1^st Century style (they were going to scourge him while questioning him further). Now, Paul was a Roman citizen, and under Roman law it was illegal to scourge a citizen. Paul pointed this out to his captors in Acts 22:23, and was spared the torture in favor of a trial.

The second example comes from Acts 25. Paul, who was then on trial before Porcius Festus, the Roman governor of Judea, saw that the governor was probably not going to give him a fair trial, and so he invoked the supreme right of a Roman citizen: he appealed to Caesar himself in hope of justice. He did this respectfully, but resolutely.

Clearly, the Apostle Paul had no problem with questioning authorities or appealing to the law in his defense, and I see no biblical reason why modern Christians are under obligation to act any differently. The Constitution is our supreme law, our supreme authority; we have every right to appeal to its provisions and to demand that those provisions be respected and not overthrown.

Conclusion

In summary, be aware of the fact that our government has already begun using religious propaganda to get its way, and that it fully intends to do so again. Beware those who would preach to you concerning how you should obey them as authorities over you, if they refuse to obey the authority over them. Beware those who talk about the law if they themselves are law-breakers. Beware those who would speak to you of “duty,” if they themselves have broken their oaths and violated the trusts of their offices. Contrary to the propaganda you’re likely to hear in the event of a martial law situation, neither Romans 13, nor any other passage of scripture, can be twisted to the effect of forcing Christians to buckle under to, participate in, or otherwise sanction, illegal actions or outright atrocities committed by the state.

You who are members of the clergy: could you go door-to-door telling people that God wants them to turn in their guns (or fuel, or food, or gold) and to leave themselves bereft and helpless because the state says so? You who are members of the military or law enforcement agencies: could you force yourselves on, or actually fire on, otherwise law-abiding American citizens who might only be trying to defend themselves, their property and their families against those who have decided to toss the law out like yesterday’s garbage? Could you justly take part in unjust actions? How many of history’s wars and other atrocities could have taken place had those ordered to carry them out simply said “No.”? Could Rome have enslaved and tortured millions of people without the consent of its soldiers? Could any of the tyrants of the past have plundered their citizens had they been forced to wield the sword by themselves? Could a single Southern farm have been burned had Northerners not consented to Lincoln’s rampage? Could Stalin or Mao have murdered tens of millions of their own countrymen without the assistance of their “Peoples’” armies? Make no mistake, if the United States government ever decides to oppress its own people, for whatever reason, it will not be the President or members of Congress, or the Joint Chiefs who go around intimidating people, kicking in doors, muzzling protest, dividing families, jailing and/or torturing dissenters or carrying off property. It will be you. They will expect you to do these things for them. The question is: can you live with it? And even more importantly: can you answer to God for it?

II Corinthians 5:10 – “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” (Note – I see no exceptions granted here for those “acting under orders”).

Finally, don’t wait for the crisis to come before you act. The day martial law is declared is not the time to begin doing something about it. That time is now, today, before it happens. Start by familiarizing yourself with passages of scripture such as those I’ve listed above; and always consider what the Bible says for itself, not how others would interpret it to their own advantage. Familiarize yourself with the Constitution, with relevant legislation and presidential executive orders, and with the history of martial law situations and military occupations both here in the U.S. and in other countries. Share what you learn with your friends and family. Consider joining up with groups like Ron Paul’s new Campaign for Liberty, where you can work for change alongside other concerned Americans. Never forget that an intimate knowledge of truth is the best defense against the lies, distortions and half-truths of the propagandists.

Robert Hawes is the author of One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution. This article, along with his past writings, can be found on his blog. He lives in South Carolina with his family, and is available for hire as a freelance writer. All scripture references used in this article are from the New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

Christianity and War

2008-06-12T14:30:00.002-04:00

The following is an excellent article by Laurence M. Vance entitled "Christianity and War." It offers a scathing, and I believe much needed, critique of Christian views concerning the state and warfare. Highly recommended!

Here's an excerpt:

We hear more from the pulpit today justifying military intervention in the Middle East than we do about the need for missionaries to go there. It is appalling that instead of the next military adventure of the U.S. government being denounced from every pulpit in the land, it will be preachers who can be counted on to defend it – and more so if it is another Republican war. To compound all of this, many of the church and denominational leaders who don’t follow the Republican Party line and don’t support the war in Iraq are strangely silent. Not a word about the immorality of the Iraq War. Not a word about U.S. imperialism. Not a word about the lies of the U.S. government. Not a word about the pseudo-Christianity of the president. Not a word about Christians naïvely supporting the latest U.S. government pronouncement. Not a word about the CIA and the military being no place for a Christian young person. Not even a mild word of warning about the evils of the U.S. government. I don’t buy the excuse that these leaders are merely preaching and teaching the Bible and choosing not to dabble in politics. They are not silent about the evils of rock music, trashy daytime television, abortion, and pornography, even though the Scripture doesn’t mention these things, yet they are silent about the evils of war. Perhaps their churches contain too many current and former members of the military and they don’t want to rock the boat. Perhaps they are veterans themselves and feel embarrassed to now criticize their former employer.
If there is any group within Christianity that should be the most consistent, the most vocal, the most persistent, and the most scriptural in its opposition to war and the warfare state, it is conservative Christians who look to the Bible as their sole authority. Yet, never at any time in history have so many of these Christians held such unholy opinions. The adoration they have toward President Bush is unholy. The association they have with the Republican Party is unholy. The admiration they have for the military is unholy. The thirst they have for war is unholy. The callous attitude they have toward killing foreigners is unholy. The idolatry they manifest toward the state is unholy.

For the full article, go here, and thanks to Laurence Vance for writing such a great piece.

Are you a "terror" suspect?

2008-05-08T19:18:00.006-04:00

Are you a potential "terror" suspect?

You might be surprised. According to the information contained in a Texas law enforcement pamphlet, just about anyone (literally) would qualify as a suspect. This has to be seen to be believed:

http://www.infowars.com/images2/ps/txps_terror_pamphlet_front.jpg

http://www.infowars.com/images2/ps/txps_terror_pamphlet_back.jpg

For more paranoia, consult these pamphlets issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the FBI:

http://www.virginianewssource.com/images/VATerrorismManual.pdf
http://www.infowars.com/Images/fbi_flyer.jpg
http://www.infowars.com/Images/fbi_flyer2.jpg

Included in those to watch for are (the Texas pamphlet list is much more extensive):

"Anti-government" types (no definition provided, are limited government advocates also "anti-government"?)
"Property rights activists" (opposition to eminent domain, perhaps?)
"Religious extremists" (who constitutes an extremist? what beliefs are 'extreme'?)
"'Defenders' of the US Constitution against federal government and UN (Super Patriots)"
Those who "make numerous references to US Constitution" and/or "attempt to 'police the police'"

According to the above documents, potential terrorist paraphernalia could include such common items as:

sketch pads or notebooks
maps or charts
still or video camera
hand held tape recorder
binoculars

Ever carry around a notebook? How about maps or cameras? Ever use binoculars for bird-watching or star-gazing? Ever carry a tape-recorder in preparation for a meeting, or to make a list for later reference? You may want to think twice about doing these things in public places from now on lest you be taken in for some "enhanced interrogation".

So watch those references to the Constitution (no one seems to know how many is too many), be careful of the company you keep (stay away from women and children in Texas), be sure you're not carrying around any "terrorist tools," (no more taking pictures of the Capitol building for Grandma and Grandpa) and, should you find yourself under suspicion, you can take comfort in the fact that, as an American citizen, you are essentially entitled to nothing.

There Stands Schweitzer Like a Stone Wall

2008-03-31T17:24:00.002-04:00

The pernicious and blatantly unconstitutional REAL ID Act has met with strenuous objections from many state officials, and, to their credit, some states have actually taken legislative action to forestall the program’s implementation. Even so, as the Associated Press reported on March 21, 2008, only Maine, Montana and South Carolina have not “sought extensions to comply, or already started toward compliance with Real ID.” New Hampshire has asked to be exempted, but the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has deemed that request “not legally acceptable.” So thus far, out of fifty states, only four have had the courage to tell the federales to go jump in a lake.

Now, I understand that, by filing requests for extensions, other states may be trying to drag the issue out until after the general election. Some state lawmakers don’t want to comply, but they’re afraid they’ll be accused of being “soft on terrorism” (or, even worse, breaking party ranks – horrors!) if they oppose it outright, so they’d rather stall in the hope that a new Congress and a new administration might repeal REAL ID and thereby solve the problem for them. But this solution, while pragmatic from a certain political point-of-view, is exacerbating the overall problem of federal usurpation. By filing for a compliance extension, states are playing by the federal government’s rules, and in doing so they are tacitly acknowledging the legitimacy of those rules (and the supremacy of those making them). On the other hand, the non-complying states are sending an entirely different message to Washington. They are denying that the federal government has any rightful authority to impose this program at all. In the process, they are also tacitly arguing that states have a right to interpret the Constitution for themselves, and to decide when the federal government has overstepped its bounds.

Enter Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer.

Schweitzer is not your typical Democrat. Indeed, he has been called the “antithesis of the Democrat stereotype.” In a 2006 article in the New York Times, it was said that Schweitzer has “seized the heartland imagery generally monopolized by Republicans,” and represents a new “Democratic brand of libertarian-tinged prairie populism” that may threaten the GOP’s traditional hold on the western states. I can’t support Schweitzer on every issue but I’ll take his brand of Democrat over Hillary or Obama anytime. For instance, on the topic of guns, Schweitzer has remarked that he owns “more than I need but less than I want,” and says, “In Montana we think gun control is hittin’ what you’re shootin’ at.”

It’s hard not to like a man who thinks that way.

Schweitzer is also a leading opponent of REAL ID, which he has called “another harebrained scheme, an unfunded mandate to tell us that our life is going to be better if we’ll just buckle under on some other kind of rule or regulation.” Among America’s governors, he is easily the most outspoken on the issue, and has promised that Montana will not yield. Regarding the powers-that-think-they-be in Washington, Schweitzer recently told NPR, “We usually just play along for a while, we ignore them for as long as we can, and we try not to bring it to a head. But if it comes to a head, we found that it’s best to just tell them to go to hell and run the state the way you want to run your state.” After hearing Schweitzer on NPR, Matthew Dunlap, Secretary of State for Maine, commented: “We were pretty impressed. We hadn’t heard rhetoric like that in many a year.”

Schweitzer’s impressive rhetoric stems from the fact that he possesses qualities that have become increasingly rare in American politics: namely, principles and guts. He has the courage of his convictions, and, God bless him, he’s doing what he can to inspire others to cultivate brains and backbones of their own.

On January 18, 2008, Schweitzer sent a letter to the governors of seventeen states, appealing for their help in stopping REAL ID. The following are some excerpts from the letter:

Last year, the Montana Legislature unanimously passed, and I signed, a bill to prevent our state from participating in Real ID…We recognized that Real ID was a major threat to the privacy, constitutional rights, and pocketbooks of ordinary Montanans...

Today, I am asking you to join with me in resisting the DHS coercion to comply with provisions of Real ID…I would like us to speak with one, unified voice and demand that Congress step in and fix this mess…

[DHS] Secretary Chertoff’s remarks yesterday, albeit about WHTI, not Real ID, reflect DHS continued disrespect for the serious and legitimate concerns of our citizens. I take great offense at this notion we should all simply “grow up.” Please do not accept the Faustian bargain of applying for the DHS extension. If we stand together, either DHS will blink or Congress will have to act to avoid havoc at our nation’s airports and federal courthouses.

According to the Associated Press, as of March 14, Schweitzer’s office had been flooded with a grand total of two replies, “both simply acknowledging receipt of the letter.” Tragically, this fact upholds my long-standing suspicion that, among America’s elected officials, the women aren’t the only ones wearing panties.

For his part, however, Schweitzer continues to soldier on.

On March 21, Montana’s Attorney General, Mike McGrath, sent a letter to DHS Secretary Chertoff, informing him that Montana’s licensing requirements are already “one of the most secure in the nation,” and that he cannot authorize implementation of REAL ID because the Montana legislature has forbidden it. McGrath also asked that DHS not take any steps that would “penalize Montanans’ ability to use their valid Montana drivers licenses for federal identification purposes and commercial air travel.” DHS replied that it would have to treat McGrath’s letter as “a request for an extension,” to which Governor Schweitzer responded, “I sent them a horse and if they want to call it a zebra, that’s up to them. They can call it whatever they want, and it wasn’t a love letter.”

Principles and guts, ladies and gentlemen. Principles and guts.

The battle over REAL ID is one that we cannot afford to lose. Its implementation would mark the beginning of a new era in America’s decline, and not just because it would limit the average American’s ability to board an airplane or enter a federal building. REAL ID will do far more than that. If successful, it will very quickly become the standard for identification purposes in every area of life and business where the federal government is involved, and there are precious few areas where it is not involved these days, thanks mainly to the war on drugs and the People’s glorious income tax system. You may be required to produce a REAL ID if you start a new job; open a bank account; buy a gun (and most likely ammunition, too); or even to purchase certain over-the-counter medicines, as DHS Assistant Secretary for Policy Stewart Baker recently told the Heritage Foundation. I can even foresee a time when you may not be permitted to vote without the Mark of the Bush on your person.

REAL ID will also become a patriotic shibboleth test and a law enforcement red flag. The Department of Homeland Security, working closely with law enforcement officials in collaborating – er, cooperating – states, will instruct officers to be on the look-out for vehicles with tags from non-complying states. Drivers of such vehicles will be pulled over more often, searched more often, and generally harassed and subjected to thuggery more often. Count on it. DHS and state officials may deny it – or not, in this age of brazen police-state tactics and intimidation – but, either way, it will happen. These people are on a witch hunt, and anyone who dares to challenge their methods is automatically under suspicion of having a broom and a pointy hat hidden away in his or her closet.

In a nutshell, REAL ID will, for the first time, give the federal government real power to destroy the lives of political dissenters; not by direct means, as this would assuredly spark a rebellion, but by indirect means. By simply denying an individual the ability to live a normal life. By blocking them in at every turn. By treating them like outcasts, if not virtual traitors. If you doubt that such things could ever happen here in America, I would encourage you to research civil liberties under Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, and particularly under Abraham Lincoln. There was a time in this country when it was considered the height of patriotism to harass and imprison those who criticized the government, to burn the towns and fields of dissenters, and to steal food from the mouths of women and children in the name of the flag. Our leaders are openly following in the ideological footsteps of the tyrants of the past, and, sadly, some in the highest courts in the land are prepared to excuse their abuses.

Not only can it happen here, it already has happened here. And it can and will happen again unless those in positions of responsibility, like Governor Brian Schweitzer, stand up to tyranny, look it in the eye, and call it what it is, even when it comes wrapped in red-white-and-blue packaging. Furthermore, such brave men and women will need the support – the very loud and public support – of every single American who cares enough about freedom to do something more than complain about its decline. The Washington establishment must know that people like Schweitzer have our active support, and that we will do everything in our power to oppose the overthrow of this republic. Write and call your elected officials. Let them know that REAL ID is an affront to the principles of American liberty and that it must be repealed. Give them the example of Schweitzer. Ask that they not let him be the lone voice for sanity and freedom among America’s governors where REAL ID is concerned. Encourage them to stand with him. Point out that REAL ID was never even debated by Congress, but was attached as a rider to an “emergency” war funding bill! Remind them that states do have the right to oppose unconstitutional federal edicts. In fact, I would go further than that – remind them that they are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and thus that they are obligated to oppose its violation. And above all, let them know that, if they will stand for you, you will stand with them.

There stands Schweitzer like a stone wall. Rally behind the Montanans!

We're doing nothing about what ails us

2008-03-06T18:46:00.002-05:00

The Jeffersonian should be returning with a new original article soon (sigh...I've been busy); however, in the meantime, I thought you might enjoy this little bit of righteous indignation from a Montana resident:

Letter to the Editor of the Billings Gazette:

Link: http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/03/06/opinion/letters/40-ailsus.txt

What a strange lot we Americans are. For instance:

There is a war going on which about 70 percent of us oppose and want our troops brought home. So what do we do? Sit on our butts and do nothing.

We have a Congress which points fingers at those on the other side of the aisle, calls one another names, investigates baseball players of all things, and does nothing. So what do we do? Sit on our butts and do nothing.

We have the worst slate of presidential candidates imaginable. So what do we do? Sit on our butts and do nothing.

Our government is going to take $300, $600, $1,200 or whatever out of one of our pockets and put it in the other, The cost of administering this farce will be staggering no doubt. So what do we do? Sit on our butts and do nothing.

The food industry is gouging us at the grocery store and the oil industry is more than gouging us at the gas pump. So what do we do? Sit on our butts and do nothing.

What can we do? There are millions and millions of us. We can do anything to which we are willing to put our hands and our minds.

Al Bishop
Billings

***

Amen, Al. Well said.

Time to Go: the Case for a New Third Party

2008-02-16T04:06:00.005-05:00

“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” – Amos 3:3

With Super Tuesday behind us, and John McCain’s straight-razor express belching smoke with a new vigor, I think it’s time that we conservatives and libertarians were honest with ourselves: the Republican Party can no longer even nominally call itself the home of limited government ideals.

It’s dead, Jim. Stick a tag on its toe and wheel it down to the morgue. And given the way it treated Ron Paul, his ideals and his supporters, I say “Good riddance!”

For awhile, many of us thought that it might be revived. There was hopeful talk among conservatives and libertarians to the effect that, “The spirit of liberty isn’t totally gone yet in the GOP – we can still bring it back.” The patient was in critical condition but seemed to have a faint heartbeat (brain activity is another matter).

Well, I’m now convinced that the heartbeat we were listening to during all of that time was our own. It’s a situation akin to a doctor hovering over a deceased patient, but with the stethoscope pressed to his own chest, all the while muttering, “He’s still in there. I can save him!” We conservatives and libertarians were the heartbeat of liberty in the GOP all along, and it’s time that we realize this and leave the corpse to rot in peace.

But what options do we have if we leave?

Among existing third parties, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties seem the most congenial for homeless conservatives and libertarians of the Ron Paul persuasion; at least ideologically speaking. In reality, however, the Libertarian Party is sagging under the weight of negative perception baggage, and it never has seemed serious about winning elections; whereas the Constitution Party, for all of its commendable points, will probably never have broad enough appeal to be successful, due to the religious language in its platform (and I say that as a Christian).

Consequently, I think the best path forward for homeless Ron Paul revolutionaries is to form a new third party. Now I’m aware that this is not going to be a welcome idea in many quarters, due to the fact that third parties have become virtually synonymous with political futility and kookery. But Americans are unquestionably looking for alternatives, and I can’t help but wonder if perhaps all of those failed, previous efforts might not teach us something about how to do it right.

Here’s what I have in mind:

Key Points:

1. Message

Past third party efforts have suffered from two primary ailments in this area: they have either limited their appeal by adhering to a narrow focus (a single issue or a small slate of issues), or they have simply offered the public a new form of statism, for which the Democrats and Republicans already serve in stellar capacity.

What is needed is a message that is different enough to set us apart from the major parties, and broad enough to draw support from virtually every political corner. For this, I suggest a two-sided approach to policy: federalism at home, and non-interventionism abroad.

Federalism:

My greatest disappointment with the Ron Paul campaign is that it has practically ignored the issue of federalism, which I think is critical, and which could have generated as much support for Dr. Paul as the war issue, if not more. In interview after interview and debate after debate, Dr. Paul consistently stated that he was in favor of “following the Constitution,” and that he wanted to roll the federal government back to its rightful place, but he never really explained what those things mean in a way that would resonate with average Americans. On most occasions, he simply didn’t have enough time, but I do think the issue could have been hit much harder than it was.

What I had hoped to hear during one of the debates was something like this:

“Americans are clearly not of one mind on every issue, so why should we have to live under the same laws? Imagine an America where California and Virginia could agree to disagree on the issue of abortion. Imagine if Massachusetts and South Carolina could agree to disagree on the issue of gay marriage. Imagine being able to go to the polls and cast a vote on such important issues without having to worrying about being overruled by a federal judge!

“Our founding fathers understood that not everyone wanted to live under the same laws. That’s why they crafted our Constitution so that the federal government had only certain, specific powers, and everything else was left up to the states, to be decided as their people saw fit. Today, though, politicians in Washington use our tax dollars to try and force us all to live by their edicts, by what they and their special interest friends want for us, instead of how we ourselves would choose to live. They want power. They want control. But they can only have these things if we let them. We can take the reins of our lives back again, if we will. By disempowering Washington we empower ourselves. Your choice is clear tonight (points to the other candidates): you can choose his plan for your life, or his plan for your life, or his plan for your life, or my plan to give you back your life.”

There is real dynamite in the message of federalism. It’s a simple, appealing idea. Show the blue staters how they can protect themselves against the red staters, and vice versa, and I think the argument will almost sell itself.

Non-interventionism:

We all know that Americans are sick of the Iraq war, and have no interest in repeating the mistake elsewhere, so the message of non-interventionism has a lot going for it. Ron Paul has been preaching this sermon consistently, and it was the issue that really catapulted his campaign into the national spotlight. Given that none of the establishment candidates are going to do anything substantive to change our failed foreign policy, I expect public disenchantment to continue to grow in this area, especially among the young (they don’t like being sent off to die for other peoples’ legacies – who knew?).

To see more on how these principles could translate into a party platform, see the American Freedom Party.

2. Grassroots level outreach and growth

Third parties typically squander their meager resources on promoting long-shot presidential candidates, when they should be working to spread their message among average Americans instead. Think about it for a moment: when was the last time you saw a newspaper ad for the Libertarian Party, or heard a radio spot for the Constitution Party? When was the last time either of them canvassed your neighborhood and left material on your doorstep? Or set up a billboard in town? Or sponsored a rally?

Whatever the long-term results of the Ron Paul Revolution might prove to be, I think the most significant to date is that is has put tens of thousands of like-minded individuals in contact with one another, in meet-up groups and chat rooms from coast-to-coast. If a new party came together, these groups could quickly become its affiliates. They would be a tremendous basis upon which to continue to spread the message of peace and freedom, far more so than anything available to any existing third party…and they’re already present in every state.

Consider what such groups have already accomplished to date. Reflect on the millions of dollars this grassroots revolution has raised. Consider the effectiveness of our writing and telephone campaigns, of how we have repeatedly made the establishment squirm over the last few months. Rudy Giuliani couldn’t go anywhere without Ron Paul supporters heckling him; and Fox News will surely never regain the credibility (or the audience) it once had.

All of this with so little formal organization! To call it inspiring would be an understatement. Given the powerful forces arrayed against us, the progress we’ve made is nothing short of incredible; and we must not let that momentum slip away. By all indications, we have difficult times ahead of us. We’re going to need one another’s support if we’re to defend what is left of our freedom, and we’re going to need to be ready with answers on those occasions when the establishment falls on its face.

Objections:

What about ballot access issues and getting into the debates?

Again, the meet-up groups scattered across the country are potential state affiliate parties, and I think they could organize and get enough signatures to obtain ballot access before the mid-term elections. They’ve already demonstrated that they can canvass effectively, so I don’t think that’s an unrealistic expectation at all.

Once ballot access is achieved, the key to maintaining it with the least amount of effort and expense will be to target the right elections, particularly those where a major party candidate is running unopposed. Third party candidates can pick up a lot of protest votes in such races. For instance, the Wyoming Libertarian Party was able to gain major party status a few years ago, due to just such a scenario.

We should also make it a goal to highlight the unfairness of current ballot access laws, and to press for change. A little pressure can go a long way, and, if anything, this movement has demonstrated that it can apply pressure and get results.

Where the presidential debates are concerned, the requirement is that a candidate be polling at 15% in order to be invited; and, truth be told, if we aren’t polling near that level, we probably shouldn’t be running anyone for president. The key there is to do our job at the grassroots level, working to spread the word and build the party to the point where we’ll have the numbers we need. Ross Perot was able to do this as recently as 1992. During the general election he received more votes than George Bush in Maine, and more than Bill Clinton in Utah, and might have done even better had he not dropped out of the race for a time (and if he had had a better Vice Presidential running mate).

What about the perception that third parties can’t win?

No mistake about it, this will be a public relations battle, and what needs to be emphasized is that anyone who wants change must be willing to work for it, and to take a chance on it: “We will never have change if we keep electing the same old people who will continue to do things the same old way,” etc. It should also be emphasized that this perception serves the interests of the major parties, both of which would like us to think that we can’t do without them. This point should be incorporated into the overall call for freedom from Washington. The more we equate the major parties with Washington and its corruption, the more people will be willing to send their votes elsewhere; and the more noise we make, the more influential, and thus viable, we will appear to voters.

What about how long it will take to build influence?

If we concentrate on getting the word out to the extent that we should, I think we’ll be surprised by how quickly we’ll grow. There are significant numbers of Americans that either do not vote or else have fallen out of the system; the Ron Paul campaign has demonstrated that these people are reachable and winnable. It has also demonstrated that America’s young people are very much open to the message of peace and freedom, and that they are politically homeless and frustrated.

Finally, bear in mind that it will not be necessary for us to capture the White House or majorities in Congress in order to have influence. The more the merrier, of course, but votes in Congress are sometimes close enough that even a couple of congressmen or a single senator can wield considerable power. The same holds true with state legislatures.

What about the fact that so many Americans like statism just fine?

Unfortunately, many Americans do like statism, but the good news is that statists are divided into camps, and they don’t get along. Liberals tend to want to control our wallets, while conservatives would usually prefer to invade our bedrooms (when foreign countries aren’t available, anyway). These are generalizations, of course, but they’re reasonably accurate; and I believe that such differences present us with the very real potential of breaking up the cartel in Washington D.C. Again, it’s a matter of showing the blue staters how they can protect themselves against the red staters, and vice versa.

Under a return to federalism, states could make their own policies concerning issues like abortion, gay marriage, medical marijuana, etc., and the potential for this kind of freedom will appeal to both sides of the aisle. Some will use it to commit outrages against liberty, while others will use it to protect liberty. If, on the other hand, the federal government retains its current powers (and expands on them), the likelihood is that all we’re going to see is a continuous stream of outrages, and there will be no escaping them. For instance, under federalism, if New York ever decided to outlaw home schooling, home school families could flee elsewhere. If, on the other hand, the federal government ever started to regulate it, they would be trapped no matter where they were within the United States.

Thus the potential of what I’m suggesting here is the ability to better preserve our liberties by forcing statists to fight us for control of fifty state governments, rather than one national government. Additionally, as I pointed out under the “influence” question, we don’t necessarily need majorities to have an impact on the system. Every single person we send to an elected office has potential to obstruct the decay of our freedoms.

Summary

I started this article with a quote from the Old Testament book of Amos – “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” It is evident that the friends of freedom can no longer pretend to walk in agreement with the GOP establishment. The party has set itself intractably against the Jeffersonian principles of non-interventionism, limited government, and individual liberty, and it has done everything in its power to silence contrary voices.

How much longer will we continue to allow the GOP elite to stymie us? In many ways, Ron Paul style conservatives and libertarians are already operating like a third party within the GOP. I’m suggesting that we just go ahead and make it official. We have the right message at the right time in history. The question is: do we have the vision and the will?

Even more fundamentally, given the enormity of what is at stake, do we have a choice?

"An army of principles will penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot...neither the Rhine, the Channel nor the ocean can avert its progress. It will march on the horizon of the world, and it will conquer." – Thomas Paine

Click here to digg this article.

The Liberal Who Would Be President

2008-02-12T16:41:00.000-05:00

The following article concerning John McCain was sent to me by a Ron Paul supporter. I thought it was worth sharing with the blogosphere:

***

The Liberal Who Would Be President

Who’s the biggest liberal running for president? Is it Hillary Clinton, an outspoken advocate of universal health care? Or is it Barack Obama, who wants the Treasury to print $4,000 for every college-bound student and then distribute the “money” like welfare checks to everyone who wants one?

Actually, neither Hillary nor Obama is the biggest liberal running for president. Looking at his record, it turns out that the biggest liberal in the race is none other than John McCain. And not surprisingly, the liberal mainstream media is fighting hard to anoint John McCain the Republican presidential nominee.

Nothing is more dangerous to liberty – not even a second Clinton presidency, with its universal health care and activist judges – than a liberal who masquerades as a conservative.

While John McCain often talks about us being his “friends,” we all know that he is no friend of you, me, or the Constitution of the United States of America. As Ron Paul pointed out in his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference:

• John McCain’s best friend when it comes to issues of free speech is Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI). Former Reagan aide Mark Levin referred to the McCain-Feingold restrictions on free speech as “the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.”
• On immigration, John McCain’s best friend has been Teddy Kennedy, the liberal, establishmentarian from Massachusetts, who worked with McCain to try to push through the most sweeping amnesty bill in American history.
• On taxes, John McCain’s right-hand man was none other than Tom Daschle. Should it be surprising that John McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts – twice? (Those same cuts, by the way, that he told the CPAC audience he wants to make permanent. Nice timing, Senator.)
• On UN-sponsored treaties, not even the Clintons side with Al Gore as often as John McCain.

And let’s not forget John McCain’s infamous temper, his belief that we should keep printing money to pay for our troops to be overseas for another 100+ years, and his endorsements from former Democrat Joe Lieberman and the liberal New York Times, as well as liberal Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

No wonder John McCain was considered by John Kerry as a potential running mate in 2004!

There is only one person now who can prevent John McCain from becoming the Republican nominee, and that candidate is Ron Paul. John McCain stands completely opposed to every plank of the message of freedom, peace, and prosperity.

Tell your friends: More restrictions on your civil liberties? More war? More government interference in the free market? Then John McCain’s your man.

But only Ron Paul can deliver us freedom, peace, and prosperity.

And while Mike Huckabee, who claims that this race is now only between him and McCain, tries to inject some humor now and again, what’s truly funny are his attempts to sound conservative. Mike may have lost a few pounds, but his liberal record is still nice and fat.

Remember Valley Forge. Now that Super Tuesday has passed, voters still have not gone to the polls in half of the United States.

There are still many delegates to be won, and Ron Paul is still the only true conservative running.

We have to fight for every delegate that we can, all the way to the Republican convention in St. Paul. With the convenient conservative Mitt Romney now out of our way, our chances are only stronger, particularly in caucus states.

John McCain may have a considerable number of delegates, but he doesn’t have the nomination locked up – yet.

We still have time to frustrate his plans to send this nation down a road it may never be able to come back from.

If you haven’t signed up already for Ron Paul’s precinct leader program, now’s your chance to convert Romney supporters to support the one true conservative: https://voters.ronpaul2008.com.

Let’s help Ron Paul win the remaining primaries and caucuses. Let’s help Ron Paul continue all the way to the Republican convention. Let’s help Ron Paul take our country back!

Addendum to the Revolution: An Open Letter to Ron Paul Supporters

2007-12-05T14:15:00.000-05:00

The disastrous presidency of George W. Bush is to the cause of government reform what the sinking of the Titanic must have been to lifeboat manufacturers: a colossal case-in-point. But as much as Bush, Cheney, and the whole motley executive branch crew have rankled our sensibilities, I think we give them too much credit.

The truth of the matter is that Congress bears far more responsibility for the overthrow of our constitutional Republic than George W. Bush, or even the worst of our former presidents. It is Congress that has passed the laws and created the meddlesome agencies that the friends of freedom so despise. Congress gave us the Federal Reserve, the 16th Amendment and the IRS, the Department of Education, the PATRIOT ACT, the REAL ID Act, the Military Commissions Act, and so forth. It is Congress that has steadily built our national debt into a financial Tower of Babel. It is Congress that has allowed George W. Bush to get away with waging undeclared wars, ignoring the laws, and trampling the Constitution, just as it has allowed past presidents to get away with various acts of usurpation (bear in mind that George W. Bush is basing his actions on the examples of men like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt). Congress also approved the Supreme Court and lower federal court judges that are providing the pseudo-constitutional authority for these excesses and abuses of power.

Presidents have considerable power and influence, and sending Ron Paul to the Oval Office could certainly do much to put the brakes on our runaway federal system; but make no mistake: there will be no real or lasting revolution unless we send the authoritarian establishment in Congress on a permanent vacation. For one thing, they've richly earned their pink slips (I'm being overly polite here - actually they've earned a one-way trip into deep space); for another, they could, and I believe would, present an enormous obstruction to Ron Paul's agenda. President Paul will be able to accomplish much, I'm sure, especially during his first 100 days, and by virtue of the powerful statement that his election will send; but big government Democrats and Republicans, ably assisted by powerful media and special interest friends, are not going to stand idly by while he tears down their treehouse. They understand that the American public is fickle, and they are nothing if not masters of the political dark arts. Like wounded animals, they will bide their time in the aftermath of a Ron Paul victory, but rest assured that they will do their best to hamstring and humiliate him at the first available opportunity. And after that first round, it will be open season on the Paul Administration and the ideals it champions.

This may sound rather doom-and-gloomy in these heady days where America is discovering Ron Paul and re-discovering the traditional ideals for which he stands; but if we are serious in our intention to turn America around, we are going to have to take on the legislative branch in addition to the executive. We are going to have to give Ron Paul a Congress that he can work with. And with both the legislative and executive branches in our corner, we will be able to reform the judiciary as well (via impeachment, if by no other means).

In short, throw the bums out!

Let the word go out through the Ron Paul revolution camp: vote for no congressman or senator who has supported the neo-conservative big government, police-state agenda. Support only those candidates who will pledge (in writing, preferably) to support constitutional liberty at home and non-intervention abroad. And if there are no suitable candidates currently running in your area, work with other Ron Paul revolutionaries to recruit them. We can help one another with filing fees and publicity, just as surely as we have helped the Paul campaign to raise millions of dollars and to get the word out, and we don't have to hurt the Paul campaign in the process. Also, bear in mind that, while it would be ideal to see all of the bums thrown out, we don't necessarily have to achieve that in order to be effective. Even a few congressmen or one or two senators could block the passage of harmful legislation, or help ensure the passage of helpful legislation.

At the very least we could bring the sort of pressure to bear on Congress that we have been so effectively exerting against those who have been ridiculing Ron Paul and trying to exclude him from the process. A good place to start with this would be pressuring the United States Senate to reject the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S. 1959), which, if passed, will pave the way for the federal government to intimidate and ultimately silence pro-freedom organizations. Let's not let that happen. Let's band together to defeat this legislation, to repeal the PATRIOT ACT and other harmful laws that have already been passed, and to rein in George W. Bush before he starts posing for the cameras with his hand in his shirt. Let's bring the full weight of this movement's energy to bear on the enemies of freedom. If we can do this, we can not only begin to halt the march toward fascism, but we can convince many fence-sitters that Ron Paul and his revolution are for real, that we are not going away, that we are a force to be reckoned with, that we will not surrender our Republic without a struggle, and that we can win this election.

It's a great day to be a Ron Paul revolutionary, and there's nothing wrong with celebrating the successes we've seen lately. But let's not overlook the larger picture. Putting a good president in the White House is not enough to restore the Republic. Firing the captain of a mutinous ship is not going to turn it around if the crew is as mutinous as the captain. We need both a new captain and a new crew if we're going to plot a new course.

Let's not settle for a partial victory next November. Let's take this revolution all the way, starting now.

The Dream that was America -- or -- Moscow on the Potomac

2007-11-01T14:56:00.000-04:00

In Ridley Scott's film Gladiator, the ailing Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius (portrayed by the late Richard Harris) travels from the comforts of Rome to the muddy battlefields of second century Germania on a mission. The Roman army, fighting under the capable leadership of General Maximus (Russell Crowe), has finally defeated the Germanic tribesmen, and Aurelius now longs to turn his attention from the maintenance of an empire to the restoration of a republic. The chief obstacle that stands in his way is his own failing health. Rome needs a young, strong and vigorous leader to take it down the path that Aurelius envisions. His son Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) is weak and spoiled, full of base ambition, not at all the man for the job of relinquishing power. Maximus is the man Aurelius wishes to succeed him to the imperial seat, but Maximus is tired of war and strife, and more than anything else he simply wants to return home. In the following lines of dialogue, Aurelius struggles to convince Maximus that Rome still needs its finest soldier:

MAXIMUS: "5,000 of my men are out there in the freezing mud. 3,000 are cleaved and bloodied. 2,000 will never leave this place. I will not believe they fought and died for nothing."
AURELIUS: "And what would you believe?"
MAXIMUS: "They fought for you and for Rome."
AURELIUS: "And what is Rome, Maximus?"
MAXIMUS: "I have seen much of the rest of the world. It is brutal and cruel and dark. Rome is the light."
AURELIUS: "Yet you have never been there. You have not seen what it has become. I am dying, Maximus. When a man sees his end he wants to know that there has been some purpose to his life. How will the world speak my name in years to come? Will I be known as the philosopher, the warrior, the tyrant? Or will I be remembered as the Emperor who gave Rome back her true self? There was once a dream that was Rome, you could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish, it was so fragile. And I fear that it will not survive the winter."

Most of you probably know the story. Commodus learns of his father's intentions, kills Aurelius and tries to do the same to Maximus, who barely escapes with his life. Maximus is sold into slavery, becomes a gladiator, and eventually fights in the Colosseum under the eye of Commodus. At one point in the film, Maximus points toward the bloodthirsty crowd awaiting him and exclaims, "Marcus Aurelius had a dream that was Rome... And this is not it. This is not it!"

Say whatever derogatory thing you will about Hollyweird; chances are, I'll see your insult and raise you a little righteous indignation. But every once in awhile a film comes along with a message that rings true in a powerful way. Braveheart was such a film. And while Gladiator isn't quite on the same level (the story it depicts is fictional), it carries its own impact. The struggle it portrays, that of a good man battling against evil in high places, has universal appeal. The ideals behind the story rise above its historical setting.

And every time I hear Richard Harris speaking as Marcus Aurelius I can't help but think: there was once a dream that was America too, and I fear that it may not survive the next election.

For a moment, set aside your party affiliation and whatever special interest you might have and travel back in time with me. We won't need to go far; the seventies and eighties will do just fine. This was the era in which I grew up.

It was also the latter part of the Cold War. The Soviet Union was our great enemy. Why? Because the Soviets were communists, and communists were the sworn enemies of freedom. They were not merely authoritarians but totalitarians. The Soviets believed in absolute state control over every aspect of an individual's life, and they were intent on spreading their system throughout the world.

I clearly remember being taught that, in the Soviet Union, fear ruled with an iron fist. Government spies were everywhere. The secret police could listen in on your phone calls at any time. They could read your mail. They could search your home and other property and seize whatever they liked. You could never be certain that you weren't being watched, no matter where you were. You had to carry identification papers everywhere you went, and many times you had to have permission to travel very far at all. And it wasn't just government agents that you had to be concerned about; you also had to live with the fear that your own friends, co-workers or family members might report you for "suspicious activities" or "politically questionable statements," sometimes for no other reason than to endear themselves to the communist party bosses. You had no enforceable rights where the state was concerned. Government agents could kick your door down in the middle of the night, drag you away to a state prison, torture you and even execute you. Your family would never know where you were. More than likely, you would not have legal council or ever see the inside of a courtroom. You were the property of the state, which was free to do whatever it liked with you.

We called this oppressive, militaristic mega-state "the Evil Empire," and we prided ourselves on being everything that the Soviets were not.

In America, the common man had enforceable rights, even where the government was concerned. Americans were not the property of the state. You could travel where you wished, and most of the time the government didn't care about what you were doing. Americans could say what they wished, engage in whatever peaceful political activities they wished, with no fear of violent reprisal. Americans did not disappear into gulags. If the government accused you of illegal activities, it had to give you a day in court and prove its case before a jury of your peers. Sure, America had its problems; virtually everyone admitted that. But we were still the "land of the free," and our institutions and daily lives backed that claim to a high degree, certainly in comparison to the Soviet Union.

This is the dream that was America versus the nightmare that was the Soviet Union.

Now, fast-forward in time. As I write this, fewer than twenty years have passed since the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War specter lifted. The Soviet Union is gone, and America...well, if you had told us in the 1970s or 1980s what America would be like today, and where it seems to be heading, I don't think we would have believed you.

You see, today the American government tells us that it can spy on us whenever and however it likes. It can read our e-mail and postal mail, track our financial records, pry into our medical histories, force libraries to turn over lists of the books we read, force internet service providers to turn over records of our surfing habits, and tap our phones and record our calls. It can deny us the right to travel without certain government approved "papers". It can send its agents into our homes without warrant and remove whatever it wishes, without ever notifying us. The president claims that he can seize anyone, including American citizens, and turn them into non-persons. The government – the American government – can arrest you without warrant, put you into prison without charge, and hold you for as long as it pleases. It can deny you legal council and try you before a military court, where none of the regular rules of evidence and reasonable person standards apply, and where your guilt will be assumed. It can subject to you "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture, by any other name – “Ve hev vays of making you talk"), and you will have no recourse. Your family may not be permitted to know where you are. President George W. Bush (a member of the party that once prided itself on being the "party of limited government," and that even now prides itself on being the party that brought down the Evil Empire) has decided that he can ignore whatever laws he chooses. He in fact is the law, in his own opinion. Further, he tells us that what he and the members of his administration do is not open to public scrutiny for "national security" reasons, that they are not accountable to anyone. In fact, they bristle if you question them at all, and suggest that maybe you don't have the best interests of the country in mind.

This is America, 2007; not the Soviet Union, circa 1980. Like it or not, we are, by degrees, becoming like the very thing we once hated. And we are becoming more like it all the time.

Some will call this unpatriotic nonsense. "We're nothing like the Soviets," they claim. "We're just changing to meet the changing threats of our time, and if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."

Really?

So, we can do the same types of things that the Soviets did but not be like them? We can adopt their police state tactics, spy on people like they did, hold secret courts like they did, kick down doors and haul people away like they did, throw people into secret prisons like they did, torture people like they did, refuse to answer questions like they did, ignore the laws like they did, and criticize the opposition as being disloyal like they did...and yet be nothing like them? Notice that I'm not saying that we're the same as the Soviets; I'm saying that we're becoming progressively more like they were, that we're on a slippery slope here, and that we're desperately trying to rationalize our way out of confronting the obvious (torture isn't torture as long as we don't call it that, etc).

Tell me, how much evil do you have to do before you yourself become evil? Is there a certain magic number of people that we need to have in prison without charge before it becomes wrong? How many do we have to waterboard and stuff into cramped, freezing cells before it becomes un-American?

And as for not having anything to worry about as long as you haven't done anything wrong – please, don't tell me you've fallen for this! This argument assumes two things: 1) that the government is accountable to someone for what it does with you, and 2) that it has to prove that you've done something wrong before anything bad can happen to you. Neither one of these is necessarily true anymore. All the government has to do is classify you as a suspected "terrorist" and the legal niceties that we used to call "rights" suddenly vanish, along with all of their guarantees. If the president and his subordinates have the authority to ignore the laws of the land, then whether or not you've done anything illegal is a moot question by default, because the law no longer exists as far as you are concerned! You are no longer being judged by that standard; you are being judged by the whims of the powerful, whose motives and actions are not being judged by anyone. You cannot tie the hands of the law and then expect it to protect you.

Our Founding Fathers understood this. This is why they required an oath to support the Constitution on the part of our government officials, because they knew that the only way the common people can be safe from tyranny is if their government is restrained by the law. The Constitution isn't there to hinder us, it's there to protect us – because freedom is fragile. It must be guarded, handled delicately, cared for like the precious thing that it is.

Some will argue with the comparisons I've made to the old Soviet Union, because, like General Maximus, they refuse to believe that our country is caught up in corruption, that our leaders have anything but pure motives, and that our men and women in uniform are dying for nothing but the most honorable of causes. They too have seen much of the rest of the world, if only by way of CNN or Fox News, and they find it brutal and cruel and dark. America is their light in that darkness, and as long as it remains a bit brighter than what they see around them, they seem willing to overlook the fact that our "city on a hill" doesn't shine as brightly as it once did. Cruelty, brutality and darkness are creeping in here, but as long as we're not as bad as someone else, we're generally content with our illusions of safety and superiority. We find no contradiction, no hypocrisy in speaking the tyrannical language of the Soviet state with an American accent.

God forgive us. The men who froze at Valley Forge, who crawled up the beaches of Normandy into the murderous teeth of Nazi machine gun fire, who faced undreamed of horrors in steamy jungles thousands of miles from the comforts of home, did not fight so that we could let our country slip into the hands of those who would re-make us in the image of our enemies. Whether you agree with every cause that Americans have spilled their blood for or not, we can acknowledge that most of them believed that they were fighting for freedom, to protect the whisper-fragile American dream. They didn't sacrifice to give us Moscow on the Potomac. We owe them, ourselves, and the future generations who must live with the world we give them, more, much more, than to let this happen with so little struggle.

There was once a dream that was America. And friends, this is not it. This is not it.

Robert Hawes is the author of One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution. This article, along with his past writings, can be found on his blog: http://jeffersonian73.blogspot.com. He lives in South Carolina with his family.

An Open Letter to Christians regarding Decision 2008

2007-10-15T21:18:00.000-04:00

Fellow Christians,

Our country stands at a crossroads. We have faced many difficult times, made many important decisions, in our history; but not since the 1860s have we seen such a struggle as is now underway to define this Republic, to chart its course into the future and to define its place among the nations of the world.

Many voices clamor for our attention. They offer different ideas, born of different values; but for all of the ways in which they differ, there is one element that most of them have in common: they plan to rule. They intend to force their ideals upon all of us, to use our hard-earned tax dollars to further their partisan agendas, to compete with us for the education and moral rearing of our children, to subordinate our freedoms to their pursuit of power, and to put our lives and those of our loved ones at risk for their global ambitions. They will see to it that we the people become servants of the government that was originally established to serve us. They will unapologetically undermine the values that we as Christians hold dearest: the sanctity of life, the rule of law, the sanctity of the home, the sovereignty of our country, the right to raise our children as we see fit, and the freedom to rise to the heights of our God-given potential.

Fortunately, there is one candidate who stands apart from the crowd.

Congressman Ron Paul stands alone among the current presidential contenders in opposition to the authoritarian agenda. Where so many other politicans have paid lip-service to Christian, liberty-friendly values while on the campaign trail, only to betray those ideals once elected, Congressman Paul has established a firm reputation as a statesman and a man of the highest personal integrity, one who refuses to compromise our liberties and the Constitution that enshrines them, and who actually lives by the values he claims to cherish. Not since Ronald Reagan have we been presented with a candidate for president who would restore respect for constitutional rule in Washington and would protect the values that Christians hold dearest.

The following are some of the ways that Congressman Paul, who is a professing Christian and faithful church-attender, has proven his liberty-friendly, Christian values. Click on the links to read his remarks and to view video from some of his speeches:

Abortion:

- As an OB-GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies in a medical career spanning forty years, Ron Paul stands firm against abortion. He has voted to prohibit federal funding of abortions, voted to ban partial-birth abortions, voted against federal funding of fetal stem-cell research, and has authored a bill entitled the Sanctity of Life Act (twice introduced in Congress), which would define life as beginning at conception, and which would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade by removing the issue of abortion from the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts. "A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person," says Congressman Paul. "For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves."

Marriage:

- Ron Paul believes in the traditional definition of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. He spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states; and in 2005, he authored the We the People Act, which would give states the freedom to pass laws regulating marriage and sexuality without risking intervention from the federal courts. Speaking in Congress on October 1, 2004, Congressman Paul stated: "I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power." Unlike many prominent so-called "family values" politicians, Congressman Paul walks the talk. He is a devoted family man and has been married to the same woman for fifty years.

Education:

- Ron Paul favors abolishing the unconstitutional Department of Education, and is committed to ensuring that "home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families". In 2001, Congressman Paul introduced the Family Education Freedom Act in Congress. Had it passed, this bill would have provided tax credits of up to $3,000 for parents who wished to pursue private education or homeschooling alternatives. In his bill, Congressman Paul underscored the importance of giving parents primary control over the education of their children: "Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, this bill is about freedom. Parental control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of liberty. No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family."

Children and Health Considerations:

- Ron Paul believes that parents, not government, should be in charge of making decisions regarding the health and general well-being of children. In 2007, Congressman Paul introduced H.R. 2387, the Parental Consent Act, a bill that would have forbidden the use of federal funds to pay for universal mental health screening. The bill would also have blocked federal funding for any local education entity or government agency that brought charges of child-abuse or neglect against parents who did not consent to the mental health screening of their children. Among his reasons for opposing mandatory mental health screening, Congressman Paul states: "Forced mental health screening simply has no place in a free or decent society. The government does not own you or your kids, and it has no legitimate authority to interfere in your family’s intimate health matters...The bottom line is that mental health issues are a matter for parents, children, and their doctors, not government." Additionally, Congressman Paul fears that, "Screening programs will be influenced by politics. Children of religious parents, for example, risk being labeled 'homophobic'."

The Culture War:

- In a 2003 article on the controversy surrounding Christmas celebrations, Congressman Paul stated that what was being called an effort for tolerance was actually "a war against religion". He wrote: "The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity." Congressman Paul has acted to protect our religious freedoms in the halls of Congress. In 1997, he supported a constitutional amendment that would have protected the right to "acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience" on public property, including the right of children to pray in school.

Taxes and Government Accountability:

- Ron Paul has never "voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unblanced budget, never voted to raise congressional pay, has never taken a government-paid junket, and does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program." He has never voted in favor of wasteful spending and "returns a portion of his congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year." Indeed, he has earned the nickname "Dr. No" in Washington because he refuses to vote for any measure that is not specifically authorized by the U.S. Constitution. Congressman Paul opposes the unconstitutional Federal Reserve, would take steps to abolish the I.R.S., and favors returning America to a sound currency standard. "Tax relief is important," the Congressman tells us, "but members of Congress need to back up tax cuts with spending cuts – and they need to vote NO on every wasteful appropriations bill until we start over with the federal budget. True fiscal conservatism combines both low taxes and low spending."

American Sovereignty:

- Congressman Paul opposes all attempts to override American sovereignty, including the idea of forming a North American Union by joining the United States, Mexico and Canada under a common government and currency. He supports securing our borders against the current tide of illegal immigrants, particularly by denying illegal aliens access to welfare, and stands against attempts to grant amnesty to illegals currently in the United States. In 2003, he authored the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, which would have removed the United States from the United Nations and protected Americans against attempts to bring this country under international control. Commenting on the globalist threat, Congressman Paul states: "Perhaps the most seriously damaged victim of this approach is our own constitutional republic, because globalism undermines both the republican and democratic traditions of this nation. Not only does it make a mockery of the self-rule upon which our republic is based, it also erodes the very institutions of our republic and replaces them with international institutions that are often incompatible with our way of life."

Freedom and Privacy:

- "It is incumbent on a great nation to remain confident, if it wishes to remain free," writes Congressman Paul. "We need not be ignorant of real threats to our safety, against which we must remain vigilant. We need only to banish to the ash heap of history the notion that we ought to be ruled by our fears and those who use them to enhance their own power." Congressman Paul has been outspoken in his opposition to such recent federal measures as the Patriot Act and the REAL ID Act, on the basis that they are unconstitutional and unnecessary usurpations of our liberties. He argues that they actually make us less safe because they remove the protections our Founding Fathers provided in order to guard us from tyranny, and detract from efforts to identify and neutralize true terrorists. He believes that freedom is the best security, that the Constitution should be our guideline in both foreign and domestic affairs, and that no one, including the President of the United States, should be above the law. To that end, he would end illegal wire-taping and other domestic spying programs and re-instate the rule of law. "Most governments, including our own, tend to do what they can get away with rather than what the law allows them to do," he writes. "All governments seek to increase their power over the people they govern, whether we want to recognize it or not. The Patriot Act is a vivid example of this. Constitutions and laws don’t keep government power in check; only a vigilant populace can do that."

War and the Terrorist Threat:

- Congressman Paul strongly believes that our military should be used only to defend our national interests, not to enforce U.N. policy or to engage in nation-building campaigns. Ron Paul voted against the Iraq war on the basis that Iraq was not a threat to us and had nothing to do with the events of September 11, 2001. He believed that, in attacking Iraq for the purpose of enforcing U.N. resolutions, we were deviating from the historical Christian concept that the only just war is a defensive war, and that we should have concentrated on tracking down those who were directly responsible for 9-11. He maintains, in conjunction with government findings such as those of the 9-11 Commission, that our current interventionist foreign policy was largely responsible for provoking the 9-11 attacks, and that our on-going occupation of Iraq is intensifying anti-U.S. sentiment across the globe and endangering our national security more than ever. Congressman Paul also has concerns regarding how the Iraq war is affecting Christians in Iraq: "The sad fact is that even under the despicable rule of Saddam Hussein, Christians were safer in Iraq than they are today. Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister was a practicing Christian. Today thousands of Christians have fled Iraq following our occupation...many Muslims see all that we do as a reflection of Western Christianity, which to them includes Europe and America. They see everything in terms of religion. When our bombs and sanctions kill hundreds of thousands of their citizens, they see it as an attack on their religion by Christians."

In response to criticism of his foreign policy ideals, including charges of "isolationism", Congressman Paul recently stated: "A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world." Ron Paul believes that it is time to bring our troops home. Saddam Hussein is gone, Iraq has a new government that is capable of taking over and maintaining order, al Qaeda is using our presence on Muslim soil as a recruiting tool, and U.S. government posturing is threatening to renew and expand conflict in the region. It is also interesting to note that, to date, Congressman Paul has received a greater percentage of campaign contributions from active-duty military than any other presidential contender, Republican or Democrat. Clearly, a large portion of our men and women in uniform agree with his foreign policy stance. See the following link for an in-depth debate of the U.S. foreign policy issue: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul406.html

Fellow Christians, our government is out of control. It has taken on a mind and will of its own, far different from that which our Founders intended. Our highest elected officials no longer recognize the supreme authority of the Constitution that each of them swore to uphold upon entering office. As far as they are concerned, they are the law. The liberties with which we have been so blessed are being taken from us at an accelerated rate. Bureaucrats and judges are becoming more intrusive in the way we raise and educate our children. Some would even like to take away our ability to speak freely, particularly where biblical teachings offend certain special interest groups.

If America is to remain "the land of the free", if we are to honor the sacrifices of our patriotic forebearers, if we are to preserve the country and ideals that we love for future generations, we must remind our elected representatives that they are servants, not masters. We must re-instate the rule of law and respect for the limited, constitutional government that our Founders gave us. While being ever ready to act in our own defense, we must endeavor to live in peace with the nations of the world, holding forth our ideals, not by force, but by example as that "shining city on a hill" that President Ronald Reagan once challenged us to envision.

As Election 2008 heats up, only one man running for the White House has the courage, the principles, and the proven track-record to return this country to constitutionalism, freedom, and the Christian values of liberty, integrity, and the rule of law. His name is Ron Paul, and I urge you to carefully, prayerfully consider giving him your full support.

Robert Hawes is the author of One Nation, Indivisible, A Study of Secession and the Constitution. His articles are achived at http://jeffersonian73.blogspot.com. He lives in South Carolina with his family.

Review of "When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession," by Charles Adams

2007-09-20T16:38:00.000-04:00

Book review: When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, by Charles Adams.

"You must not tell the truth if it hurts a national hero." - Anonymous commentator, cited in The Last Place on Earth, by Roland Huntford.

Did you know...

- That Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, stated his support for the Corwin Amendment, which had just passed Congress, and which would have guaranteed the existence of slavery in perpetuity as an 'unamendable amendment' to the United States Constitution?

- That, at the start of the war in 1861, Congress passed a resolution stating that the war "is not waged on our part...for interfering with the rights, or established institutions of these [the Confederate] States"...meaning slavery?

- That Abraham Lincoln actually countermanded emancipation orders issued by Union General Fremont in Missouri early in the war on the basis that "It was a war for a great national idea, the Union" and that "General Fremont should not have dragged the Negro into it"?

- That Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley (a prominent abolitionist and editor of the New York Tribune) stating that, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it"?

- That Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed only those slaves in areas of the Confederate States that were not controlled by Union armies, but left those in occupied territory and border states in slavery?

- That Congress, devoid of any representatives from the Confederate States, did not pass an amendment to outlaw slavery until December of 1865, months after Lincoln was dead and the war was over?

All of the above are facts, and yet few Americans are aware of them. Why? For that simple reason that, since the end of the war in 1865, a concerted effort has been made to present Abraham Lincoln and his comrades in Union blue as humanitarian crusaders bent on achieving the equality referenced in the Declaration of Independence.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Lincoln himself stated many times that he was not in favor of equality between the races, a fact underscored by his participation in the American Colonization Society: an organization dedicated to relocating American blacks to such places as Africa and South America - anywhere but the United States. Had Lincoln and his Republican colleagues pushed for racial equality, the GOP would have died in its infancy. Lincoln himself admitted in 1858 that the vast majority of Americans (including himself) strongly opposed the idea.

Nevertheless, the modern image of Lincoln as a 19th Moses leading slaves out of bondage should not surprise us. All throughout human history, the factions that have won wars have done their best to present themselves in the best light possible, while simultaneously denigrating their enemies. They do this for two primary reasons: 1) to morally justify the enormous loss of life and destruction that wars cause, and 2) so that future generations will embrace them as heroes and accept their vision of the world. Sometimes, what they have to say is true; sometimes it is not. It is up to us to look back into the past, weigh the facts for ourselves, and decide where the virtue and blame truly lie in the history of any given conflict.

For those interested in the American war of 1861-1865, Charles Adams' book When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession should, along with the works of men such as Thomas DiLorenzo and Clyde Wilson, be considered 'equal time for the other side'. As such, I believe it is well worth your time and careful consideration.

"The thesis that the solid South seceded to protect slavery just does not make sense," writes Adams:

"The institution of slavery had never been more secure for the slave owners, with the Supreme Court in their back pocket; with the Constitution itself expressly protecting slavery and mandating the return of fugitive slaves everywhere -- a mandate Lincoln said he would enforce; with Lincoln also declaring that he had no right to interfere with slavery and no personal inclination to do so; with Lincoln personally supporting a new constitutional amendment protecting slavery forever -- an amendment expressly made irrevocable."

Indeed, rather than slavery, Adams argues that the war between North and South had more to do with taxation and competing economic interests; and he supports this assertion with an impressive variety of facts. Of particular interest here is that Adams quotes extensively from European sources, including newspaper accounts and the perspectives of such well-known figures as Charles Dickens and Karl Marx. Of all the books I have read on this subject, none weigh the international opinion so frankly and heavily as Adams does for us here. He also takes time to investigate the history of secession and to compare and contrast the ideology of the American Revolution with that of Lincoln and his Northern war partners. Again, the European perspective is evaluated, and we are treated to such thought-provoking quotes as the following from England's Cornhill Magazine: "With what pretence of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?"

The only real words of criticism that I have for Adams is that I believe he downplays the role of slavery too much when he evaluates the causes of secession. He is absolutely correct in maintaining that the war was not fought over the question of slavery, but that does not mean that it played no role whatsoever in the events leading up to the war. There are prominent references to slavery in several of the secession ordinances of the Southern states; and while Adams would maintain that those references represent so much political posturing, I disagree. Although few Southerners actually owned slaves, slavery itself was an essential element of the Deep South economy, and an important aspect of the overall social fabric of 19th Century America (even many in the Northern states had no desire to see slavery end, as it might mean that freed blacks could move north). Thus, there were very real concerns regarding the institution and how Lincoln and his "Black Republicans" might interfere with it. Adams points out that Lincoln had promised not to interfere with it, but he forgets that Southerners trusted Lincoln about as far as they could throw him. I think Adams might have tackled the issue more successfully had he focused on the fact that, while several Southern states did mention slavery prominently in their ordinances of secession, the majority of their comments on the issue focused on sectional feeling (the "sectional, anti-slavery party in Washington," as South Carolina put it) and slavery's economic importance to the South (see Mississippi's ordinance). These factors tie back into his main thesis, while acknowledging that slavery did play a role in the secessions of the first seven Southern states to leave the Union (the latter four states seceded because of Lincoln's call for troops to be used against the first seven seceded states). Southerners simply had no desire to be dictated to, not on any issue; and they seceded when they became convinced that Northern interests had taken over the federal government, and that their best hope for protecting their interests lay outside the Union.

The 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth will be upon us in less than two years, and between now and then we will undoubtedly be subjected to a barrage of the usual Abe Lincoln-as-messiah-and-patriot-extraordinaire mythology. Swallow it if you will; but for those of you who are interested in the candid, and often downright ugly, truth about America's 16th president and its most disastrous conflict, I cannot recommend "When in the Course of Human Events" highly enough. My quibbles with him aside, Adams presents his evidence and conclusions in such a even-handed, scholarly and compelling manner that only the most ardent Lincoln admirers will be able to put the book down and walk away unaffected by it.

Also recommended in the 'equal time' department: The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked, both by Thomas DiLorenzo; Is Davis a Traitor? by Albert Taylor Bledsoe; The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, by Jefferson Davis; From Union to Empire: Essays in the Jeffersonian Tradition, by Clyde Wilson and Joseph Stromberg; A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States, by Alexander H. Stephens; and One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution, by yours-truly.